ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked-

Youth Reoffending Rates

Andrew Selous: What recent steps his Department has taken to reduce reoffending rates for young offenders.

Maria Eagle: Since 2000, the frequency of juvenile reoffending has dropped by more than 20 per cent.-the trend is significantly downwards. The number of first-time offenders coming into the criminal justice system is also down. Our approach to reducing reoffending still further is detailed in the youth crime action plan, which is backed by £100 million of funding. The plan focuses on a triple-track approach of tough enforcement, non-negotiable support and prevention.

Andrew Selous: Given that many hundreds of young people who commit crime have previously been behind bars on three or more occasions, why are there no major incentives for young offender institutions to be rewarded for cutting reoffending rates?

Maria Eagle: I am interested in incentives throughout the system, but it is difficult to attribute a particular cut in reoffending to the actions of one particular institution, course or individual. So although incentives are a good and fine thing, designing what they are and how they work is slightly more difficult.

Keith Vaz: I thank the Minister for giving evidence this morning to the Select Committee on Home Affairs inquiry into crime prevention, when I mentioned to her a group that we had met called User Voice. It is a group of ex-offenders who wish to help to prevent young offenders from following the path into crime. Will she meet the group and thus recognise the importance of young ex-offenders who are trying to be a model to prevent others from getting involved in crime?

Maria Eagle: It was of course a great pleasure for me to give evidence to the Committee this morning-the time passed very swiftly. I am more than happy to meet the group to which my right hon. Friend refers. I meet groups of ex-offenders in my constituency who believe that mentoring can be an excellent way of trying to turn those who are on the path into custody away from crime.

David Burrowes: In 2007, the Government talked about
	"delivering improved outcomes for young black people in the criminal justice system".
	However, the latest published figures show that among 15 to 17-year-old prisoners, 17 per cent. of those on remand and 13 per cent. of those sentenced are black. Given the year-on-year increase in the over-representation of young black people in custody, how does the Minister rate the performance of the designated ministerial champion tasked with reducing those numbers? I refer of course to the Justice Secretary.

Maria Eagle: I rate my right hon. Friend extremely highly; he is very good at everything he does as far as I am concerned. The particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is very difficult, and we must recognise that black and minority ethnic people are still over-represented in our criminal justice. The reasons for that over-representation are complex. Work is going on to try to tackle it but, as he rightly says, there is still a lot to do.

Education and Training

Barry Sheerman: What education and training opportunities are available to offenders (a) on remand and (b) serving short-term custodial sentences to help them find employment following release.

Maria Eagle: We have increased spending on education and training threefold in the past few years. In prisons we provide a curriculum with a broad focus on employability, ranging from preparatory employment skills, literacy and numeracy, to higher level qualifications and skills training. A new unit-based qualifications and credit system will be particularly valuable for those serving short sentences, as it will allow learning to take place in short modules, which can be continued out in the community.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend would be very welcome to come before my Select Committee, which is currently examining the not in education, employment or training-NEET-population. We are finding that a large number of young people who begin short custodial sentences or spend a long time on remand break their education and find it very difficult to get back, so can we have more of these short courses and can they be well funded?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend rightly says that there is an issue to address in respect of ensuring that people who have not engaged in education and training at the earliest possible opportunity in their lives get a chance to do so and are helped to stick at it, in whatever setting. I have been collecting Select Committees lately. If that was an invitation, I might just come along to his Select Committee to tell him what I think about this and his fellow members of the Committee- [Laughter.] -I said "if" that was an invitation. I am happy to say that the number of 16 and 17-year-old NEETs in the system has been falling and now stands at 5.2 per cent., but there is clearly more to do in that respect.

Humfrey Malins: Education and training opportunities, especially for young offenders, are still very poor. At Reading young offenders institution, for example, there are only five hours a week of education and training, and at Rochester only three and a half hours. Why are those figures-they are Government figures-so bad?

Maria Eagle: In the YOI estate, we aim for 25 to 30 hours of education and purposeful activity. I realise that outcomes vary across the estate, and we strive to improve that because it is something that can make a difference to the lives of these young people.

David Drew: Visiting prisons and young offenders institutions in my area, one notes how variable the facilities are. Younger people often need hands-on experience with equipment to gain technical expertise. Is that something that the Government are making efforts to improve?

Maria Eagle: Yes. We have a corporate alliance of 100 employers across various sectors, many of which actually provide work-based training in prisons and young offenders institutions, which give those who take the courses not only employment while in prison but qualifications and, sometimes, the promise of a job when they leave prison. That has to be the way forward. Some 38 per cent. of those released from custody are released into education and training, and 26 per cent. into employment.

Alan Duncan: Is not the greatest impediment to training and getting a job the simple fact that all the efforts to help an offender upon release from prison are fragmented, and the first person they are likely to meet when they step through the prison gate with £40 in their pocket is the local drug dealer? What plans do the Government have to ensure that national offender management becomes genuinely local offender management, and that the ex-offender is met at the gate by someone responsible for their rehabilitation, so that over time reoffending is dramatically reduced?

Maria Eagle: While the Conservatives talk about a rehabilitation revolution, the Government have been providing it and we already have such schemes. Because of the creation of the National Offender Management Service and closer working together at a local level in education, health and local authority services such as housing, this is already happening. I am not saying that we cannot do more-we can, and we must-but the Conservatives should recognise the significant impact that has already been made on reducing reoffending.

Civil Litigation Costs

Paul Rowen: What assessment he has made of the recommendations in Lord Jackson's review of civil litigation costs; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw: Lord Justice Jackson's review was published on 14 January. Anybody who has read its 550 pages-as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has done-will note that it is remarkable for its thoroughness and imagination. It makes recommendations for fundamental reforms to reduce costs in the civil justice system. We are now actively assessing the implications of Sir Rupert's proposals, including-crucially-their economic impact.

Paul Rowen: Does the Secretary of State accept that if the proposals are implemented, especially those on litigation costs for industrial personal injuries, it will be ordinary men and women with, say, asbestosis or byssinosis who will lose out? That will be in direct opposition to the commitment made on behalf of the Government by the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) on 14 April 1999, when he said that the costs of litigation should lie, in the first place, with those who have actually caused the damage.

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman's opinion about the impact of Lord Justice Jackson's proposals, which are designed to reduce the costs of civil litigation overall. Those costs have risen too high, and that is a bar to proper access to justice. Of course, he makes scores of interlinked recommendations, and they have to be examined with great care, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will do Lord Justice Jackson justice-no pun intended-given the thoroughness of his report, and recognise that his whole aim was to reduce costs and improve practical access to justice.

Rob Marris: I am a non-practising solicitor because I do not believe in moonlighting. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when considering implementation of the Jackson review he will seek to avoid lessening access to justice, with fewer so-called no-win, no-fee agreements or a greater burden on the already stretched legal aid system?

Jack Straw: I know that legal aid is understandably a matter of concern, but it must be said that the legal aid system in England and Wales, both for civil and criminal legal aid, is by far and away the most generous system in the western world. It compares by a factor of about three with systems in comparable common law jurisdictions, such as Australia and New Zealand. Part of the problem concerning the burden on the civil legal aid fund and the public purse from, for example, actions for medical negligence are the costs of litigation. Those are in nobody's interest, except those who directly benefit. Lord Justice Jackson has made specific proposals for conditional fee arrangements: he proposed that they should be abolished and replaced by an alternative of contingency fees, under which the litigant, applicant or plaintiff would pay his or her side's own costs out of any damages recovered, and that there be a 10 per cent. uplift in damages. That is a central recommendation of Lord Justice Jackson's review, which, as I have already made clear, we are examining with great care.

Henry Bellingham: We, too, welcome this remarkable magnum opus. The Secretary of State will be aware that Lord Justice Jackson was very critical of referral fees and some of the practices of claims management companies. What is the Secretary of State's view of that, and can he now give a cast-iron guarantee that when it comes to referral fees and claims management matters, there will be no special exemptions or cosy deals for the trade unions?

Jack Straw: I am not intending that there should be any cosy deals with anybody in the implementation of the report. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, have read with care chapter 20 of the Jackson report.

Patrick Cormack: I have read every word of the report!

Jack Straw: There will be an examination straight after this!
	The recommendations for referral fees actually came not from the trade unions but directly from the Office of Fair Trading, which still supports referral fees. That said, I fully understand the objections raised by Lord Jackson about referral fees. We have to look at all the recommendations in the round and make judgments in the round, not least after the economic assessment that we are making at the moment.

Reoffending Rates

John Robertson: What steps he plans to take to reduce the number of prisoners reoffending within two years of release; and if he will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: We have had substantial success in reducing youth and adult reoffending, which fell by 23.6 per cent. and 20.3 per cent. respectively between 2000 and 2007. The Government will continue to work towards driving down reoffending and to ensure that, alongside punishment, we also try to reform offenders.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware that there is something of a revolving door as two thirds of people are reoffending. We are now talking about 20,000 extra places being made available for people who have committed crimes. Should we not be looking at why these crimes happen and why people get involved in criminality in the first place, and trying to prevent them from ever getting involved in criminality?

Maria Eagle: Of course we should, and we do both. It is not unconnected, in my view, that crime has fallen by one third and that we incarcerate serious and dangerous offenders for longer. Those things are not unconnected. Violent crime is down by 41 per cent., although the Conservative party appears unwilling to accept it. There are fewer victims of crime than ever before and one now has the lowest chance of being a victim of crime since records began. These are substantial achievements that the Conservative party ought to recognise.

David Howarth: It is disappointing to hear a Minister still claiming that the fall in crime has to do with the increase in the prison population, given that the same fall in crime has happened throughout Europe, apart from Belgium, without the same prison policy being in place. Does the Minister not recognise that the real underlying problem is that too many people are in prison in the first place for crimes that would be better dealt with by systems that work, such as restorative justice and getting them off drugs and drink?

Maria Eagle: We have increased fifteenfold the amount of money that we spend on drug interventions in prison and the amount we spend on providing prison education threefold. They are substantial achievements. Some 38 per cent. of those leaving prison enter education and training; 26 per cent. get a job and 80 per cent. enter settled housing. That is tackling the underlying causes of crime. Not only do we protect the public by incarcerating dangerous and severe offenders for longer, but we tackle the causes of crime.

Julie Morgan: What progress have the Government made on ensuring that offenders have bank accounts when they leave prison? Without bank accounts they cannot access accommodation or employment, and they are one of the things that help to prevent reoffending.

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. We have some arrangements between bankers and the Department, and through those we are exploring the provision of basic bank accounts to offenders. Clearly there are difficulties, and some banks have concerns about allowing a certain type of offender to have a bank account. However, we believe that we can overcome some of those difficulties by continuing to discuss such matters, and we are seeing some progress in that regard.

Dominic Grieve: Neither reducing reoffending nor public protection is served by this Government's reckless early release scheme. Can the Minister tell the House whether she or the Secretary of State plans to announce the end of early release before 6 May?

Maria Eagle: I cannot say anything other than that we keep the matter closely under review. The policy was announced as a temporary measure to deal with overcrowding. We have said that we want to end it as soon as practically possible, and I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others keep that under review frequently.

Dominic Grieve: That was a gentle masterpiece of obfuscation, so let me try again. Can the Minister confirm that the official advice that she and the Secretary of State are receiving from their Department or the Prison Service warns against ending early release now, because the lack of cells means that it would have to be reintroduced in a matter of weeks or months? Can she reassure the House that there are no plans to leave the next Government the poison pill of a looming prison crisis?

Maria Eagle: I am not about to start bandying official advice across the Dispatch Box, and I do not think that any Minister, in any Administration, would seek to do that. I will therefore not rise to the bait that the hon. and learned Gentleman is dangling before me. Beyond saying that we keep the matter, which we take very seriously, under constant review, I have nothing to add.

Re-registration (Service Personnel)

Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the merits of ending the re-registration requirement for service voters.

Michael Wills: Ending re-registration altogether would create inaccuracies in the register. However, the Government recognise the need to respond to the special circumstances of service voters. That is why we have laid before Parliament an order that extends the declaration period for service voters from three to five years, and why we are taking forward further measures to help service voters to register to vote and, indeed, to vote.

Andrew Robathan: Before the last general election I took this matter up because I discovered that there were shamefully low levels of service voter registration. I welcome what the Government have said. I last had a meeting with the Electoral Commission in, I think, October, when we discussed this. I am sure that, like me, the Minister wishes to make it as easy as possible for people fighting-and possibly dying-in places such as Afghanistan to be able to vote. May I therefore urge him to reconsider so that perhaps people could register as service voters when they join the forces, as I did, and then de-register when they leave? That would be very easy: it worked in those days, and I managed to vote Conservative throughout those days as well.

Michael Wills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in the matter. He brings a lot of experience to it, and I am grateful to him. I agree with him entirely: it is crucial that those who are prepared to make such sacrifices for their country should be able to have that important say in the future of their country. There is no question about that. I will of course take into consideration what he has said. We have set up a working party, with Ministry of Defence officials, Ministry of Justice officials, and representatives of the families and the armed services, to see how we can achieve long-term solutions to what is a difficult problem.
	I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I promise him that we will take it forward and have a look at it. I know that he will agree with me and would not want to recreate the sort of inaccuracies that were in the register before 2000. However, I can reassure him that we are making efforts to ensure that our servicemen in Afghanistan in particular are enabled to register to vote in the forthcoming election, and then able to vote. The proxy vote system is available to everybody. We are trying to expedite postal voting for service personnel as well, and we will be announcing measures to that end shortly.

Prisoners Maintaining Innocence

John Hemming: What recent estimate he has made of the number of people in prison who maintain their innocence.

Claire Ward: The information requested is not collected. A person who believes that they have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice can appeal against their conviction. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be asked to review the case. The commission has the power to refer a conviction to the Court of Appeal.

John Hemming: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she think there would be any merit in the Government undertaking a study of miscarriages of justice, and of the correlation between unevidenced assertions and compensation in miscarriage of justice cases?

Claire Ward: There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the number of wrongful convictions is rising. The Court of Appeal quashes about 200 convictions each year, and I see no reason at all to make any change to the current arrangements.

Stephen Ladyman: One group of people who often have difficulty expressing and establishing their innocence are those on the autistic spectrum. In the state of Maryland in the United States, this is being tackled by the Maryland curriculum, which trains court officers and police officers to recognise autistic behaviour. Would my hon. Friend be prepared to review the Maryland curriculum to see whether there would be any merit in introducing such a scheme in the United Kingdom?

Claire Ward: My hon. Friend has given the House some interesting information, and I would be more than happy to ask officials to look into it in more detail. He might also be aware of the Bradley report, in which my noble Friend Lord Bradley identifies the difficulties experienced by people with mental health and other learning difficulties. The report examines how the criminal justice system should approach these issues and suggests alternative ways of dealing with them, where possible.

David Howarth: I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the Minister responded to the original question by saying that the Government do not collect this information at all. About a year ago, they said it would serve no useful purpose to collect it. Does she not recognise that there is a useful purpose? When prisoners maintain their innocence, it can often lead to their being held in prison for longer, perhaps because they are held not to have completed various courses. Do the Government not see that there would be a purpose in making a study of cases such as those?

Claire Ward: When someone is convicted, it is only right that the system accepts that the court's decision is right and, if they are sent to prison, the prison system should accept the decision on that basis. The person has an opportunity to appeal, and if the appeal is unsuccessful, they also have an opportunity to refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that people who maintain their innocence might not get parole or be considered appropriately. It would not be lawful for the Parole Board to exclude someone from an opportunity for parole simply because they maintained their innocence. There are some courses that it would be inappropriate for such people to attend, such as sex offending treatment, simply because if they could not admit their offence, it would be difficult to discuss with them how they were going to progress from it.

Self-harm (Female Prisoners)

Eric Illsley: What recent estimate he has made of levels of self-harm in women's prisons.

Maria Eagle: About half of all incidents of self-harm across the entire prison estate are perpetrated by women, who comprise only 5 per cent. of the prison population. Levels of self-harm in women's prisons are broadly stable, although they are high. The number of self-inflicted deaths, however, has gone down to a three-year average of 60, which is a significant improvement on the past few years.

Eric Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. On a recent visit to New Hall women's prison, I was shocked to see the levels of self-harm among very vulnerable females. Some of the women are serving jail sentences for offences such as the non-payment of their television licence fee. Is there more that the Government can do to reduce the serious level of self-harm in women's prisons?

Maria Eagle: We are taking steps to try to deal with serious self-harm in all our prisons. One of the best ways of preventing vulnerable women from self-harming is to try to provide alternatives to custody for petty offences. This enables the women to remain in the community while tackling their offending behaviour. In that respect, using the £15.5 million of extra resources that we have made available to divert women from custody is probably the best way of tackling this issue.

Elfyn Llwyd: Given what the Minister has just said and given the overwhelming evidence recently provided in the Corston and other reports, it is clear that far too many women in prison should not be there. More should be done, as it has been estimated that up to half the female prison population should not be in prison-we really should grasp this nettle and act urgently.

Maria Eagle: I am doing my best to do that. The hon. Gentleman's analysis that some women in prisons should not be there may well be correct, but it is sentencers who send people to prison and we have to provide places for them. We have to find alternatives in the community for many of these vulnerable women that command the respect and support of sentencers. That is what some of the money in the diversion projects I mentioned is being used to do. It shows some progress that there has been a 4.2 per cent fall in the number of women in prison over the last year during which these projects have been working, while at the same time the male prison population has increased by 2 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: May I gently say that the comprehensiveness and courtesy of ministerial replies is greatly appreciated by hon. and right hon. Members, but I think that the abridged rather than the "War and Peace" version will suffice.

Madeleine Moon: I very much welcome what my hon. Friend said about providing diversionary tactics for women in prison. Welsh women, if sentenced to a period in prison, have to serve their time in England at some considerable distance from their families. What ways can be found to help to ensure that there are greater diversionary opportunities for sentencers in Wales so that women are able to serve their sentence closer to family support in Wales?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is correct: about 50 or so Welsh women are serving their prison sentences in English jails, as there are no women's prisons in Wales. We do not intend to build one, but we are providing support both in south and north Wales for diversionary projects that might enable sentencers not to impose short prison sentences for those who really would do better with community sentences.

Burglary Sentences

Laurence Robertson: What progress has been made in his review of sentencing for people convicted of burglary offences.

Claire Ward: The maximum sentence for burglary of dwellings is 14 years; for non-domestic burglary, it is 10 years; and for aggravated burglary, it is life. Within the statutory framework, it is for the Sentencing Guidelines Council to issue guidelines to the judiciary. The SGC issued guidelines for non-domestic burglary in 2008; following R  v. Saw in 2009, it is currently preparing guidelines for domestic burglary.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Twelve months ago, the Secretary of State and the then Minister of State said that they were looking at toughening up the sentencing policy for burglary offences. Will the Minister tell me what is happening with first-time offenders who commit burglary?

Claire Ward: Within the statutory framework, it is of course for the courts to determine what is appropriate, and the framework is quite extensive. As a result of that framework, we are seeing that the average custodial period for burglary has increased from 15.5 months in 1998 to 17.4 months in 2008. Overall, burglary has more than halved since 1997.

Returning Officers

Andrew MacKay: If he will take steps to strengthen accountability arrangements for returning officers.

Michael Wills: The Government are aware of concerns that have been raised in Parliament about the accountability of returning officers and registration officers, and we are exploring ways to address them. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that any changes should take place only if they support the principle of the independence of these officers.

Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding that independence, does the Minister not agree that he should make it very clear to returning officers at the forthcoming general election that unless there is very good geographical case against, all counts should take place on the night?

Michael Wills: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that on a personal level I have made that very clear, as indeed has my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. I think that that is a settled view across the House. However, as the Minister responsible for elections, I have to proceed in a way that respects the integrity and independence of the system and of those officers. As I have said, we are exploring ways of addressing this issue; we will announce the outcome of that review very shortly.

Geraldine Smith: I welcome the Minister's comments, but does he appreciate that this is a cross-party issue? Indeed, we agree with Mr. Speaker when he says that we do not want slow-motion democracy, but instant democracy. In a modern democracy, we should be able to achieve that.

Michael Wills: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She and many other Members in all parts of the House have made the same points extremely cogently in recent weeks, and their concerns have been taken on board. As I have said, we will announce the result of our explorations very shortly.

Eleanor Laing: I know that the Minister is well aware of the strength of feeling and cross-party opinion on the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith). He will have seen the massive number of signatures attached to an early-day motion on the subject, he was present at a debate in Westminster Hall last week, and he will know that new clause 98, tabled to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, is due to be debated this evening.
	The Minister has been offered a great opportunity to take action to preserve the constitutional convention under which the government of our country is determined without delay after a general election. Either he can accept new clause 98, or the Government can present further proposals to give powers to the Electoral Commission forthwith to ensure that election night is not lost and democracy is preserved.

Michael Wills: I have already made clear my great personal sympathy with the view that has just been expressed so cogently by the hon. Lady. Her new clause plays a valuable part in the debate, and I will respond to it at the appropriate time rather than during Question Time. However, while I share her views on a personal level, I am sure that all Members would wish to preserve the other fundamental constitutional underpinning of our electoral system, namely the independence and integrity of the returning officer.

Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this question is not really about protecting the independence of the returning officer, but about protecting the right of the British people to know the results of our election at the earliest possible opportunity? I do not always agree with Opposition Front Benchers, but in this instance they are absolutely right. New clause 98, or another one, would come in very handy to concentrate returning officers' minds.

Michael Wills: I have already made clear several times that I personally agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point. However, it is very important-I ask all Members to respect this-that we proceed in a way that does not give the impression that politicians are interfering with the independence and integrity of the electoral system. We know the view of Members in all parts of the House, and we must find a way of meeting it that does not compromise those fundamental constitutional principles.

Probation Service

Shailesh Vara: What plans he has to improve the performance of the probation service.

Jack Straw: The performance of the probation service has improved significantly in recent years from the variable and insufficiently supervised base that I found on becoming Home Secretary in 1997. Since then funding has increased by 70 per cent., staff numbers by 49 per cent., and case load by 53 per cent. All but one of the 41 probation areas are meeting or exceeding their targets, but the whole service is committed to driving up standards further. I have no doubt that the introduction of probation trusts is providing its own dynamic for change and improvement.

Shailesh Vara: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but is he aware that, owing to the Government's obsession with bureaucracy and centralisation, the probation service now uses a plumber from Birmingham to fix a loo seat in Norwich, and an electrician from Devon to change a light bulb in Birmingham?

Jack Straw: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the rather unsatisfactory shared-facilities arrangement that was entered into some years ago. I was not aware that it had led to the situation that he has described, but I am certainly aware of concern about it. I have received representations about the arrangement from many probation officers and probation trusts, and we are trying to disentangle the service from it.

National Victims Service

John Howell: How much his Department plans to spend on the national victims service in 2010-11.

Claire Ward: The national victims service has been allocated £8 million for the financial year 2010-11. Of that, £2 million will be allocated to the homicide scheme, and the remaining £6 million will provide the enhanced service for other victims of crime. The service will be delivered, in partnership with the Government, by the charity Victim Support. It builds on huge improvements for victims in the past 10 years to change the culture of the criminal justice system in responding to the practical and emotional needs of victims.

John Howell: I thank the Minister for her response, but Ministers have already said that the national victims service will be funded from efficiency savings in the Department. Will the Minister tell us precisely how those efficiency savings will be made?

Claire Ward: We have already allocated the funding, and we have made the efficiency savings. The money has not been taken away from other victims' services provided by the Department. What we do with that money is important. Victim Support already provides a good service, and I am absolutely confident that the national victims service will provide an even better one.

Electoral Registration

Chris Ruane: What steps his Department is taking to increase the rate of electoral registration.

Michael Wills: The Electoral Administration Act 2006 imposed new duties on electoral registration officers to take all necessary steps to ensure a comprehensive and accurate register and to encourage voting. The phased implementation of individual registration across Great Britain will be supported by a drive to improve registration rates.

Chris Ruane: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. What measures might his Department take to ensure that the money it sends to the Department for Communities and Local Government for electoral registration is actually spent on electoral registration?

Michael Wills: I agree that the money that the Government allocate to local authorities for that purpose ought to be spent on that purpose, but as my hon. Friend well knows, he needs to raise the matter with DCLG Ministers, not those at the Ministry of Justice.

Nigel Dodds: In areas of very low registration, is there not a case for resources to be targeted, so that there can be active canvassing of households in order to ensure much greater registration in those areas?

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We know that there are fundamental disparities in registration rates, especially among minority ethnic groups, people in privately rented accommodation, unemployed people and young people. That is why the Electoral Commission is specifically targeting registration campaigns on those under-registered groups. There is a good case for targeting, and we are doing that.

Denis MacShane: The Minister will be aware that there are about 2 million British citizens living as immigrants in other EU countries and an estimated 10 million to 12 million living outside our borders all over the world, but just 13,000 of them are registered to vote. That is the lowest figure for overseas citizens who are registered to vote in any democracy. Why is it so low?

Michael Wills: I suspect that my right hon. Friend already knows that overseas voters are, quite rightly, subject to the same registration requirements. It is often very difficult to find them, but that is not to say that we are not doing everything we can to encourage citizens overseas to register. The Electoral Commission has been carrying out promotional campaigning on the issue, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will come forward with suggestions as to how we can do still better.

Legal Aid

Mark Harper: When he next expects to meet the chief executive of the Legal Services Commission to discuss the commission's work in procurement of legal aid in England and Wales.

Bridget Prentice: Meetings are regularly held with the Legal Services Commission, at which a wide range of issues are discussed. One of the key current items on the agenda is the Public Accounts Committee report, which we welcome.

Mark Harper: I am very pleased that the Minister will be discussing those issues. When she meets the LSC chief executive, will she discuss why it overpaid solicitors by £25 million in 2008-09, why its accounts have been qualified, and why the head of the National Audit Office says that it does not understand the markets in which it is buying services? Is that not an appalling record that needs to be fixed?

Bridget Prentice: If I may just correct the hon. Gentleman, it will not be me who will be meeting the LSC; it will be my noble Friend Lord Bach. Having spoken to Lord Bach, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he will be discussing the issue of overpayment. Since the NAO report came out, 10 per cent. has already been recovered. We are taking a very robust view on the way in which the whole thing has been dealt with, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that further information will be forthcoming shortly.

Bail Hostels

John Baron: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of bail hostels in assisting prisoners' resettlement.

Maria Eagle: Approved premises-formerly known as probation and bail hostels-are the most effective form of supervision for many high-risk offenders on release from custody. They are far better than dispersing such offenders into less suitable accommodation elsewhere in the community. While in approved premises, offenders undertake offending behaviour work and purposeful activity to help them reintegrate into the community and reduce the risk that they will reoffend.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for that answer, but Government figures show that a quarter of all those living in bail hostels are returned to prison because they have either reoffended or broken the rules. Does the Minister therefore think it fair that, if our suspects cannot be bailed to their own homes, we should be obliging other communities and neighbourhoods to take them?

Maria Eagle: The fact that there are recalls from approved premises because of breach of rules, absconding, further arrests or remand for other offences is a sign that supervision of those offenders is working. Such offenders are often highly dangerous and pose a high risk of harm. It is better that they are looked after in the community-which is often the community from which they originally come-with much greater levels of supervision than would be possible in any other way. Many of these people have been released at the end of their sentences and therefore cannot be retained in custody but need to be properly supervised when they are in the community. The fact that many of them return to prison is a sign of success.

Croydon Land Registry Office

Andrew Pelling: What financial provision has been made in respect of staff redundancies at the Croydon land registry office.

Michael Wills: If the proposed closure of the Croydon land registry goes ahead following the consideration of the responses to the public consultation, which closed recently, the estimated figure for redundancies is £11.7 million. The Land Registry plans to announce its final decisions, including a decision on Croydon, and to publish a full-responses document in March.

Andrew Pelling: Will the Minister take a keen interest in such a decision, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the Croydon land registry managed to secure a cost per unit of £14.01, which is much better than the target of £16.54? It is the best performing office of all land registries in terms of its cost per unit. Let us bear in mind, too, the fact that the sale of the building will cost the taxpayer-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck. He got in and he had his opportunity, but he cannot have two bites of the cherry.

Michael Wills: I will of course continue to take a keen interest in the proposals. I commend the hon. Gentleman for his diligence on behalf of his constituents in Croydon land registry and I know that the Land Registry will consider his remarks with great interest. The results of its deliberations will be announced in March.

Topical Questions

Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jack Straw: I would like to draw the House's attention to two major reviews that have been announced recently. First, a working party has been established to examine issues relating to the substantive law of libel in response to concerns that our libel laws might be having a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Secondly, there will be a review of the family justice system in England and Wales to ensure that we can improve outcomes for children, support parents as fully as possible and ensure that court time is focused on protecting the vulnerable. These important issues need proper and due consideration and that could lead to a fundamental shift in the way in which family justice is done from the current adversarial system to a more inquisitorial system.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that community payback schemes are not only effective in dealing with offenders but popular with local communities, who believe that they provide valuable payback to the community. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he intends to expand those schemes ?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that community payback schemes are increasingly popular. They have become additionally popular since 1 December 2008, when we introduced the high-visibility jackets so that the public could see who the offenders were. The system is working very well and, as I have seen in many parts of the country, the public are now voting on which schemes they want the offenders to undertake. We want to see the schemes expanded. The question of how many offenders end up on them is a matter for the courts, but they are expanding and we back that.

Shailesh Vara: Will the Justice Secretary kindly explain why we will be wasting time today debating the alternative voting system rather than all the proposals of the Wright Committee report? We ought to debate them all instead of simply selected items in due course, as the Government propose. We need to discuss the whole report; why are we not debating it?

Jack Straw: The Opposition are Johnny-come-latelies to the issue of parliamentary reform-[Hon. Members: "Rubbish!"] It is true. It was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who ensured that the suggestion from our hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) to establish a Committee was implemented. We have wholeheartedly welcomed the report. There will be a full day's debate on the whole report and there will then be votes on it. If the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) has concerns about the items on the Order Paper, my strong advice to him is to talk to his Chief Whip before he next stands up and makes pronouncements about it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has just said. I suppose that his answer is living proof that once a Leader of the House, always a Leader of the House. It was very generous of him to answer what was effectively a business question, but I do not think that we need further supplementaries on that particular matter, which is not relevant to the Ministry of Justice.

Barry Sheerman: When will my right hon. Friend do something about the bloodsuckers who benefit when small businesses or individuals go bankrupt? One of my constituents was bankrupted for a sum of £9,000, but by the time PricewaterhouseCoopers had finished administering the case, she owed £80,000. When I inquired about that case, PWC charged her £800 for answering my letter.

Bridget Prentice: I fully sympathise with my hon. Friend and his constituent. If he wants to give me the details of that case, I will happily take it up not only within the Ministry of Justice but with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, because I understand that small firms in particular that have become bankrupt or insolvent need immediate help. We have been doing a great deal of work in that area during the current economic crisis, and I am more than happy to share some of that with him.

Greg Mulholland: The court fees paid by Leeds city council to cover care and adoption proceedings used to be capped at £150, but on the new scale it pays anything between £2,225 and £4,825. That acts as a tax on keeping children safe. There is the Francis Plowden review to consider, but this matter seems to be taking too long. Will the Justice Secretary say when the issue will be addressed and when the review will be made public?

Jack Straw: Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that there was a transfer of funding of £40 million from my Department to the revenue support grant to provide fully adequate compensation to local authorities for the increase in fees.  [Interruption.] That was not ring-fenced, because local authorities object powerfully to ring-fencing, but they have had the money and we have lost the money. We are now studying Francis Plowden's recommendations with care.

Jim Cunningham: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether an update of measures on witness protection-more importantly, witness protection in the courts-is under way?

Jack Straw: We have made huge improvements on witness protection in recent years. The Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the courts now have witness protection measures in place, and some £22 million a year is spent by the police. We changed the law in 2008 to provide for a statutory scheme of witness protection, and that has been further extended by measures in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 regarding victims of serious gang and knife crime, which will shortly come into force.

Philip Hollobone: There are 10,000 foreign national prisoners in British jails at the expense of British taxpayers. That is a massive 13 per cent. of the prison population. Will the Lord High Chancellor of all England confirm that, as of this moment, not a single foreign national prisoner has compulsorily been returned to his or her country of origin?

Jack Straw: The proportion of foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales is far lower than the European average. In most European countries, it is about 20 per cent. or much higher, particularly in southern European countries, so we are at the bottom of the league table, and I am glad that we are. On compulsory repatriation, the hon. Gentleman will know that it has been a long-standing practice of Governments, including those whom he has supported, for prisoner transfer arrangements to be subject to the consent of the prisoner. We are changing that practice, and the arrangements apply right across Europe.

Stephen Hepburn: Can the Justice Secretary, even in his wildest dreams, think of any scheme dafter than the one under which pleural plaques victims in Scotland are compensated by the British taxpayer while English pleural plaques sufferers get nothing?

Jack Straw: I obviously understand the concern that my hon. Friend raises, but he will be well aware that Scotland is a separate jurisdiction in respect of civil law. It is therefore inevitable that differences will arise-that is a natural and inevitable consequence of devolution. I understand his frustration about the issue of pleural plaques in this country, which is widely shared, but we continue to look actively for a solution.

John Hemming: The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), is the Minister with responsibility for the family courts. She will recall the meeting that she had with the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and myself, at which we discussed the conflicts of interest that can arise when solicitors are introduced to clients by local authorities and then paid by both sides. What have her conversations with local authorities about this matter brought up?

Bridget Prentice: I have not had any conversations with local authorities on this matter, but I shall be raising it with the Law Society and with other bodies that have a professional interest in it.

Chris Ruane: Ministers will be aware that there are currently 66 electoral registration officers who are not fulfilling their role of registering electors. What can be done to improve the situation?

Michael Wills: May I commend my hon. Friend on his diligence in pursuing this matter? It is a scandal that 3 million or more people in this country who are eligible to vote are not able to do so because they are not registered. He has been diligent in trying to improve the situation. As he knows, the Government have taken a range of measures to try to drive up registration rates. The Electoral Commission is now monitoring the performance of all electoral registration officers closely. It is determined to make sure that they all do their job and that the scandal of having 3 million people not on the register when they should be is ended.

Paul Rowen: Will the Secretary of State tell us when a decision will be made on compensation for pleural plaque victims? He has been saying for 18 months that an announcement is imminent. Will it be made before the general election?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to chide me for saying that, and I wish that I could be more precise. However, I-

Henry Bellingham: He is going to leave it to us.

Jack Straw: No, as that would be leaving it for a very long time indeed. Counting chickens is not a wise idea but, to come back to the question, my hope remains that we can make the announcement as soon as possible.

Tom Watson: Will the threat of prison for visiting Israeli politicians make it easier or harder for the UK Government to secure peace in the middle east?

Jack Straw: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the issue of arrest warrants and universal jurisdiction. Action on that is currently being considered by Government.

Philip Dunne: In response to a question from the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), said that overseas voters were subject to the same registration requirements as domestic voters. If he is not aware that overseas voters have to re-register annually-whereas here, of course, only households have to register-perhaps it is no surprise that he has taken such small steps to increase overseas participation. What is he going to do about it?

Michael Wills: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we are introducing individual registration in this country. That is welcomed by his Front-Bench team, and I hope that he will welcome it too. We are doing a great deal to try to increase registration rates among overseas voters, and we have changed the requirements in all sorts of ways. He well knows that we are looking at how we can make attestation an easier process for overseas voters. We are not negligent about these matters. We are trying to do our best but, as I pointed out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), it is sometimes difficult when people choose to live overseas. They do not register their presence with our missions overseas, and so they can sometimes be very difficult to trace. That is the fundamental problem, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know.

Rob Marris: When are the Government going to take steps to lessen markedly the use of these wretched super-injunctions, which hide from the public legal process even the fact that they have been obtained, let alone their content?

Jack Straw: That is principally a matter for the courts. The recent judgment by Mr. Justice Tugendhat was important. It made clear the limitations on the so-called super-injunctions, as have other members of the senior judiciary. If my hon. Friend has in mind the case involving  The Guardian , I can tell him that part of the problem was that the interpretation of the court order did not necessarily accord with the order's actual wording.

Anne McIntosh: The Justice Secretary is aware of my concern about sentencing guidelines that allow shop theft offenders to be let off with a private notice penalty. Those offenders should be referred to court so that their substance abuse might be addressed. What progress has been made on that?

Jack Straw: I am so well aware, and so is my Department, that there is an official who works virtually full time on the concerns of the hon. Lady, whom I commend for her assiduity. We have changed the guidelines significantly so that fixed penalty notices for shop theft are made available only for a first offence when there is no evidence of drug or other substance misuse. There are other restrictions, too, and we look to the police strictly to enforce those guidelines.

Nicholas Winterton: What advice would the Secretary of State give to my constituent Joanne Foster, whose partner was killed by a man who has committed a string of violent offences during his career-and who has been sentenced to what will turn out to be two years' imprisonment? Is that adequate? Is that justice?

Jack Straw: First, may I express my profound sympathies and condolences to the family in respect of their loss? The hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but I cannot possibly comment on the detail of an offence without knowing a great deal more about it. If he cares to let me know about it, however, I shall write to him explaining the view of the court, which is independent, so that he can pass it on to the family.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to cause friction in the Winterton household. I have called Sir Nicholas; I now call Ann Winterton.

Ann Winterton: Jolly good! As we seek to reduce reoffending, why are young offenders not positively encouraged to take part in Duke of Edinburgh award schemes-not least because those schemes in turn encourage self-confidence and self-discipline and are very much favoured by employers, thereby leading, hopefully, to a job?

Maria Eagle: It is a great scheme, and there is no doubt that many schemes are available. I expect that some youngsters in youth offending institutions and in custody are so encouraged, and I hope that more will be in due course.

Philip Davies: Over the Christmas recess, the chief constable of West Yorkshire police, Sir Norman Bettison, highlighted his concerns that burglars were being let out of prison early because there were not enough prison places, thereby causing an unnecessarily high burglary rate in West Yorkshire. What is the Secretary of State doing to address that outrageous state of affairs, which the chief constable of West Yorkshire police has highlighted?

Jack Straw: The end-of-custody licence scheme is unsatisfactory, as I and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) have already said, and we wish to bring it to an end as quickly as possible. That said, there has been a dramatic reduction in burglary rates over the past dozen years throughout the country and a dramatic improvement in prison places. That contrasts very sharply with the policy of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the shadow Justice Secretary, who is committed to reducing the prison population to its 1993 level, which would mean not an increase in prison places, but a cut to 43,000.

Christopher Fraser: Further to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) put, the independent monitoring board report on HM prison Wayland in my constituency found that the UK Border Agency routinely detains foreign nationals beyond their release date. The report says:
	"This practice...is...poor use of a training prison to warehouse foreign national indefinitely."
	Why have the Government not done anything about it? What are they going to do in order to engage the UK Border Agency to deal with that serious issue?

Jack Straw: We are doing a great deal to ensure that time-served foreign national prisoners are deported. When we can, we transfer them during their sentence, but in many cases we have to deport them at the end of their sentence, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are working very closely together. The result is a very significant increase in the number of deportations-particularly, if I may say, given the shambles of a situation over which the previous Conservative Government presided until 1997.

Peter Bone: Does the Secretary of State and Lord High Chancellor believe that there should be a change in the law with regard to the wearing of the burqa in public places?

Jack Straw: No I do not, and I would strongly recommend against a change in the law.

Maria Eagle: I think the hon. Gentleman would look quite good in one.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend the Minister is offering the hon. Gentleman some advice that I shall not pass on; it is equivalent to saying that he looks good on the radio.
	All of us may have views about the wearing of the burqa, but I do not believe that the matter should be the subject of the criminal law-that would be expecting the police to remove these items of apparel from women who chose, for religious or cultural reasons, to wear them. That should have no part in the system of law in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker: It is encouraging to see the House in such a good mood this afternoon.

Out-of-Hours GP Services

Mike O'Brien: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about out-of-hours primary care following the conclusion of the coroner's inquest last week into the care of Mr. David Gray, who died on 16 February 2008. First, and I am sure that I will be joined by the whole House in this, I should like to extend my sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Gray. This was a tragic case, and I am deeply sorry for their loss. I understand that litigation has arisen out of this issue and I shall therefore direct my remarks primarily to the wider policy issues.
	Concerns about out-of-hours primary care were raised with me last summer. I then met primary care professionals to understand the issues in greater detail and to consider what action we might take to improve out-of-hours services for patients. The Care Quality Commission's interim report on out-of-hours care in Cambridgeshire, published on 1 October 2009, also expressed concerns over the quality of care provided. By that time, on 23 September, following discussions with them, I had formally asked Dr. David Colin-Thomé, the national director for primary care at the Department of Health, and Professor Steve Field, chairman of the council of the Royal College of General Practitioners, to lead jointly a review of the current arrangements for the local commissioning and provision of out-of-hours services.
	The report, which I published last Thursday, considered the commissioning and performance management of out-of-hours services, the selection, induction, training and use of out-of-hours clinicians, and the management and operation of the medical performers lists on which doctors must register in order to practise in England. The report acknowledges the fact that there is an unacceptable variation in the quality of out-of- hours services across the country, and it sets out 24 recommendations, including that primary care trusts should review the performance management arrangements that they have in place for their out-of-hours services, to ensure that they are robust and fit for purpose; that the Department of Health should issue guidance to PCTs to help them decide whether a doctor has the necessary level of English to be added to their medical performers list; that the Department of Health should develop and introduce an improvement programme for PCTs to support the commissioning and performance management of out-of-hours services; that out-of-hours providers should consider their recruitment and selection processes for clinical staff to ensure that they are robust and follow best practice; and that strategic health authorities should monitor the actions taken by PCTs in response to the report and in carrying out appropriate performance management of out-of-hours providers.
	The report's recommendations are an important reminder, to PCTs and providers, of their pre-existing obligations to provide patients with safe and effective out-of-hours services. We have accepted the recommendations in full, and we intend to go further still. I have announced additional improvements to out-of-hours GP services. We will review the existing national quality requirements, and introduce and mandate national minimum standards that all out-of-hours providers will be required to meet. We will introduce a model contract based on these national minimum standards for out-of-hours provision that PCTs and the providers of out-of-hours services must use. The Department will work with national medical organisations to develop a national database and consider what data should be placed on it. We will tighten existing controls to ensure that PCTs meet their legal obligations and that providers employ competent clinicians to practise as out-of-hours GPs. SHAs must ensure that PCTs are meeting their obligations and we will, in turn, hold SHAs to account for this.
	There is already a clear legal requirement under the National Health Service (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004 for PCTs to refuse a doctor's inclusion on their performers list if they are not satisfied with their level of English. We will direct PCTs to review their procedures and to make certain that they have a clear policy in place for assessing the English language skills of everyone applying to be added to their local performers list. Finally, we will require PCTs to involve local GPs in the design of out-of-hours services through local medical committees, RCGP groups and faculties, clinical executive groups and practice-based commissioning consortiums.
	Officials in the Department of Health will continue to work with the NHS to implement these measures. The NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, wrote to all NHS organisations last Thursday to bring Dr. Colin-Thomé's and Professor Field's report to their attention. He sought assurances that they are meeting their obligations as highlighted in the report. Along with Sir David Nicholson's letter, the Department of Health has issued new interim guidance to PCTs to assist them in complying with their obligations to ensure that all doctors admitted to their performers list have the necessary English language skills.
	It is clear that in some areas out-of-hours services are not as good as they could or should be. However, as Professor Field's and Dr. Colin-Thomé's report acknowledges, even when GPs were responsible for the care of their patients 24 hours a day, only 5 per cent. of them actually provided out-of-hours care for their own patients. Those GPs that did so were often left dangerously tired and exhausted. The system was unsafe. In fact, by early 2000, the level of complaints from the public was so great that the Government asked Dr. David Carson to conduct a comprehensive review of out-of-hours services in England. His recommendations formed the basis of our 2004 reforms, which have led to significant and independently verified improvements in out-of-hours care.
	Most of our out-of-hours care is today provided by local GPs working on rotas for co-operatives or companies and, the case of Dr. Ubani notwithstanding, most of the service is good. A 2006 review of out-of-hours care by the National Audit Office said:
	"England is at the forefront of thinking internationally"
	on out-of-hours care. In 2008, a Healthcare Commission report on urgent and emergency care added:
	"There have been significant improvements over recent years in the...number of out-of-hours GP services meeting national quality requirements."
	While it is clear that the quality of out-of-hours care for most people is better than it was in 2004, it is still not good enough. I hope that the recommendations set out in the report by Dr. Colin-Thomé and Professor Field, along with the additional measures I have set out, will let Mr. Gray's family know that lessons will be learned, and I hope that we will give patients the level of out-of-hours primary care that they expect and deserve.

Mark Simmonds: May I join the Minister in extending my sincere condolences to Mr. Gray's family?
	I thank the Minister for the courtesy of giving me sight of his statement prior to his making it at the Dispatch Box. I suspect, however, that it is with great reluctance that he has come before the House today and that he has done so only because of significant pressure.
	It needs to be said that good out-of-hours care is being provided in some parts of the country, but it is clear from the coroner's report into the terrible tragedy of David Gray in February last year, and from the additional report by Dr. Colin-Thomé and Professor Field released last Thursday, that there are significant failings in the provision of out-of-hours care in some parts of England, providing unsatisfactory levels of patient care and, ultimately, putting patients' lives at risk. There have been several tragic deaths, and we must all do everything we can to ensure that that never happens again.
	The Government's decision to allow almost all GPs to opt out of involvement in out-of-hours care in 2004 was a significant and serious mistake. The current structure of out-of-hours care is at best patchy and has been described by the Public Accounts Committee as "shambolic". The Government were consistently warned that there were ongoing failures in the system, with reports not only by the PAC but by the National Audit Office and by the Select Committee on Health, twice, highlighting serious concerns and failings, yet no effective action was taken. All those reports, and the two released last Thursday, are critical of the patchy provision of out-of-hours care.
	The list of defects and non-performance is extensive: increasing numbers of complaints about out-of hours care; primary care trusts failing to monitor the quality of care and not reviewing or assessing contracts; inadequate performance measurements; strategic health authorities not monitoring PCT performance, and in some cases not engaging in the process at all; out-of-hours care used too often as a holding bay; insufficient skills for commissioning out-of-hours services; some PCTs ignoring and shunning GPs' involvement and advice; a lack of clarity on responsibility between commissioners and providers; significant additional pressure and attendance at accident and emergency and pressure on ambulance services; little or no integration of out-of-hours care with urgent care; non-implementation of selection, induction and training of foreign doctors; very poor response times; and a lack of a coherent and consistent approach to the inclusion of doctors on the performers list.
	It is clear that there were failures at SHA, PCT and provider level. There were failures to assess foreign doctors' language, communication and formulary skills, to involve GPs in the commissioning of services, to monitor, review and assess out-of-hours care, and to assess and learn from patient experience. In some parts of the country, that litany of failures has been detrimental not only to patient care but to patient safety, culminating in the shocking death of David Gray.
	The Minister has said that he will implement all the recommendations of the Colin-Thomé and Field review. Will he do the same for the coroner's recommendations? What will be the time scale for the implementation of the recommendations of the review? In other words, what is the longstop date for its total implementation? What action will the Minister take to ensure that SHAs review PCTs' progress in that area? SHAs need to do more than just consider what action should be taken. How will he ensure that PCTs properly and regularly review out-of-hours contracts, involving local GPs and, I note with interest, including local GP consortiums? Rigorous monitoring should be taking place everywhere, looking at the quality of clinical decisions, the efficiency of call handling, the adequacy of staffing, doctors' training and patient outcomes.
	The Minister will be aware that the General Medical Council is very concerned about the ability of foreign doctors from within the European economic area to practise in the UK. It believes that
	"the current legal framework is unsatisfactory"
	and that
	"the current system does not adequately safeguard patient safety."
	The Minister must ensure that he completes the immediate implementation of the Department of Health report "Tackling Concerns Locally", which has been collecting dust in the Department since March 2009. Will he address the concerns of the GMC and lobby for a change to EU law, to ensure proper skills and language testing for doctors who wish to practise in the UK? Will he consider including in the process of revalidation locums and doctors from the EEA who are working in the UK, and will he ensure that access to the performers list is tightened and that there is a much greater flow of information between PCTs and the GMC? As far as I understand from what the Minister said, there is still no mechanism in place to ensure that a doctor struck off in another EU country cannot practise in the UK.
	To put it mildly, this is not the Government's finest hour. It has taken the tragic death of Mr. Gray for action to be taken, despite persistent and consistent previous warnings. This is a serious situation that will be resolved only when the Minister accepts that in some geographical areas the system of out-of-hours care has failed; when, as the Royal College of General Practitioners recommends, a comprehensive review of out-of-hours care takes place; and when the Government accept, for the sake of patient care and safety, that responsibility for commissioning out-of-hours services must be with GPs.

Mike O'Brien: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must ensure that we do all we possibly can so that this sort of incident never happens again. That is why we responded to a series of reports and ensured that after the Carson review on out-of-hours services, we changed things-it was clear that the system that existed before 2004 was unsafe; therefore, changes were put in place.
	We do not want a situation in which we return responsibility to GPs for the management of out-of-hours care, as appears to have been suggested. Dr. Laurence Buckman of the British Medical Association has been very clear on that. He said:
	"The old system meant many doctors were tired and therefore potentially dangerous to patients and it is for that reason that the BMA, and the GPs it represents, would resist a return to doctors taking back personal responsibility for delivering care out-of-hours."
	On another occasion, he said:
	"The current out-of-hours system desperately needs improving, but we can't go back to where we were before 2004 where doctors were on call 24 hours a day, meaning many were operating in a constantly sleep-deprived state."
	We need to ensure that we deal with some of the issues that exist in the current system. I think we all, as parliamentarians, need to confront the issue of decentralisation of power. We have been pushing down responsibilities to PCTs. That is all very good, and there is a broad consensus in the House that that should happen-the closer to the patient the better-except some PCTs are more capable than others of doing a good job. That presents us with the question how best to manage that. We have taken the view that we need to bring about two changes. First, we need much more central involvement by the Department of Health in ensuring that PCTs have minimum standards, through a model contract. All PCTs must ensure that providers comply with that contract. Secondly, we need to get local GPs more involved-that does not mean giving responsibility back-so that they can monitor the quality of the out-of-hours service that is being delivered.
	The hon. Gentleman set out the concerns expressed in the report by Dr. Colin-Thomé and Professor Field. I remind him that that report was commissioned not after the coroner's report last week, but on 23 September last year. Indeed, discussions on it took place with those involved before that time, because we knew that we needed to ensure that we improved out-of-hours care. I want to have further discussions with the doctors' organisations on some of the coroner's recommendations, but in a broad sense, we accept them. We must go through some of the detail with the doctors' organisations on how that will be done.
	When can we put those changes in place? I have said very clearly to officials that I want it done by the end of the year. I want to be sure that we have got the system right by then at least. I was asked how that would be monitored. For the next six months PCTs will be required to have on the agenda of every board meeting, at least once a month, the quality of out-of-hours care and its improvement. That will be monitored by the SHA. Thereafter, PCTs need to take a higher level of responsibility for it.
	There are three checks on foreign doctors from the EEA. First, the GMC checks their medical qualifications. Secondly, since 2004 the PCT is responsible for checking that they speak English and that nothing is known about them that undermines their medical capability. Thirdly, the employers are responsible for ensuring that the GPs whom they employ not only speak English, but are clinically competent. In some cases it is clear that some of the PCTs have been a weak link. Some have not always complied with their responsibilities.
	The GMC, as was pointed out, has indicated that it would like to do some tests on GPs who do out-of-hours work. It was clear from the Medical Act 1983 that the GMC could not carry out such tests, and it cannot do so under the directive which has been renewed but predates that. In 2004, therefore, the responsibility for ensuring that English was spoken was given to the PCTs. Most of them have delivered on that. Some have not, and that is what we need to change.
	The EU law will be reviewed in 2012, so the directive will be reviewed in any event. We must ensure that we examine the detail of that. However, we cannot wait until then. We must put in place safety checks to ensure that this year the lessons of that tragic death are learned and that Mr. Gray did not die in vain.

Norman Lamb: I, too, thank the Minister for early sight of the statement, and I join in the expressions of sympathy and condolences to the Gray family. The two sons of David Gray, Rory and Stuart, want something positive to come out of their personal tragedy and I hope very much that that is the case. The system ultimately failed their father in allowing Dr. Ubani to practise in this country. Also, it failed the family by failing to ensure that he appeared before a court in the United Kingdom following a police investigation into what happened.
	I welcome the report and the recommendations, but why the delay? A report on the performers list was published on the Department's website last March. That is 11 months ago. Why has it taken this long for the Government to respond to those recommendations?
	Will anyone be held to account for the failure of Cornwall PCT? The Minister says that there are legal duties, but they are of no value if nothing happens when they are breached. The House was informed in February 2007 of doctors working in Cornwall with inadequate language skills. That was before Dr. Ubani was registered by Cornwall. What action was taken and who will be held to account for that? Will the Minister consider introducing a criminal offence of PCTs failing to protect patient safety, in order to give some teeth to the regulations?
	The greatest safeguard of all would be to prevent a foreign doctor who has inadequate language skills or competence from registering with the GMC. The EU directive allows a regulator to satisfy itself on language, but the Medical Act, as the Minister said, needs amending. Will he consider amending it so that, under existing directives, the GMC could test language skills? Will he agree to lobby for EU reform to protect patients, as the GMC accepts is necessary-first, to allow a test of competence; secondly, to require immediate notification of suspension across Europe; and thirdly, for suspension anywhere to apply everywhere that that doctor is allowed to practise under the freedom of movement of labour?
	Does the Minister share the GMC's view that patients should have a right to safe and good-quality health care across the EU and to safe doctors? If so, these reforms are necessary. Does he agree that training in UK prescribing practice and medicines use-along with an induction and assessment-is essential before a doctor from overseas starts to practise in out-of-hours care? Will those requirements be part of the minimum standards? Does he agree that providing for a minimum number of local GPs on duty, particularly in widely dispersed rural counties, must be part of those minimum standards?
	A European arrest warrant was issued in the Dr. Ubani case, but it failed to be effective because of action taken by Germany's authorities to prosecute him on a minor charge in that country. Co-operation failed in that case, so is the Minister prepared to make representations to the Home Secretary to press for proper co-operation, because the European arrest warrant is of no value if it does not deliver justice in cases such as this?

Mike O'Brien: Certainly I want to ensure that we learn all the lessons from this, but may I deal with the legal issue last? On the performers list, a report was published last March and officials have been consulting on how all that will be put in place. Where regulations need to be put in place, that will be done shortly, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that consultation with the relevant organisations needed to occur and that we wish to move forward with this as quickly as we reasonably can.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned holding to account those who have failed in the system, particularly Cornwall primary care trust. The main thing is that we get the system right; that we ensure that those who have failed will no longer be in a situation where failures can take place again; that we are able to examine how the system operates; and that the checks that will protect patients are the ones that occur.
	I am not convinced about imposing a criminal offence on a PCT. I am not sure who in the PCT the hon. Gentleman wants this to be imposed on-is it the PCT's chairman or its chief executives? I am also unsure as to what the penalty would be. We are talking about a criminal conviction, so does he want these people to be sent to prison? Does he want to fine them? Why would he convict them? These are people who have been employed to do a job, and appropriate disciplinary procedures are in place to deal with them if they do not carry out their job adequately. Boards can be dismissed, and chairmen and chief executives can be removed, so I am still to be convinced about his suggestion that a criminal penalty for these people is the best way of changing behaviour. I am also a bit cautious because we do not want to get into a situation with criminal law, which tends to be absolute in its implications, where people are reluctant to come forward and say that there is a problem in their system that needs addressing because they fear that they might get prosecuted if they were to do so. I am concerned about such implications.
	As for the GMC carrying out checks, we were aware in 2004 that there was a problem as a result of the Medical Act 1983. That is why we put in place the requirement on PCTs to ensure that English was spoken-that is something that PCTs must do. There may be ways in which PCTs can work with the GMC to ensure that it can be satisfied that people are not only able to speak English, but competent. However, that needs some further discussion between the GMC and the PCTs. In other words, the GMC could act as an agent of the PCTs, but I wish to examine that. My main concern is to ensure that the checks are done-I am less concerned about who does them. I just want them done, because patients deserve safety.
	As for ensuring that across Europe we have good and competent quality of care, we can discuss with other countries the need for them to improve the quality of what they do. We obviously have a limited amount of control over that, but what we can do is ensure that we have systems in place that enable people to become aware of information about doctors being disciplined or struck off elsewhere.
	As far as minimum training and induction are concerned, I agree that, as part of minimum standards, we need to ensure that they are included in a national contract. There is a legal requirement now, through the national quality regulations, that those standards be applied, but in this particular case, they were not always applied. That is why I want the model contract, so that there is no doubt on that point.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about extradition and the European arrest warrant. It is indeed the case that an arrest warrant was issued. Unfortunately, it appears that the arrest warrant was issued on 12 March 2009 but the German authorities refused it on 24 March 2009 on the basis that they were already prosecuting the case. I cannot quite work out why they were doing that. It has been suggested that Dr. Ubani asked the German authorities to prosecute him first, so he could avoid extradition on grounds of double jeopardy. The CPS was concerned about that, because it wanted to prosecute him, and contacted Eurojust to query that on 26 March. On 21 April, Dr. Ubani was convicted, received a four-month suspended sentence and made a payment, although it is disputed whether it was a cost or a fine. I hope that that deals with some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but we are concerned to engage further with the German authorities on this issue.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. The exchanges between the Front Benches have been wide-ranging and doubtless illuminating, but they have absorbed 32 minutes, which is almost unprecedented. The House will be conscious that after this there is a 10-minute Bill and much important business, including the final day in Committee for the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. Sixteen right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I want to accommodate everyone, but if we are to make progress timeously, we need short questions and short answers.

Jacqui Smith: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's emphasis on national minimum standards to ensure high-quality out-of-hours care for all patients, and the fact that local GPs will be involved in the design of the system. No GP has argued to me that they want to take back full responsibility, but they should be involved in the design. Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that, if new contracts are being let or contracts are being renewed, local GPs should also have a say in who receives those contracts?

Mike O'Brien: I certainly hope that we will be able to engage our local GPs, through the various mechanisms that I mentioned, in looking not only at the rules and the best way in which services can be delivered locally, but at who gets those contracts.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister reflect on the very wise words of the first family doctor I had when I was elected, who said that no true general practitioner can know his patient if he does not know him at home as well as in the surgery?

Mike O'Brien: That is a good point to reflect on, but whether it is always possible to deliver in practice is another matter. GPs who are exhausted from working all day and then all night could end up being unsafe GPs.

Charlotte Atkins: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me how he expects PCTs to ensure that they are co-ordinating the out-of-hours service with other parts of the primary care system, including minor injury units and the ambulance service? The latter is especially vital in rural areas, where needy patients can be many miles from the out-of-hours provider.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We need to ensure effective co-ordination between the ambulance service and out-of-hours provision to ensure that patients are well served.

Angela Browning: In the guidelines and minimum standards recommendations, what is the ratio of doctor to population, and does it take account of geographical areas with a sparse population? Should that not be looked at, because there are parts of the country where people wait a long time? If the Minister is looking to improve standards, surely ensuring adequate coverage in the first place is one of the first things to consider.

Mike O'Brien: Adequate coverage is indeed essential. As far as I am aware, there is not a ratio as such. However, we need to ensure that people do not have to wait a long time and that someone is available to come out within a reasonable time to ensure that the patient gets the necessary care. I have seen some of the statistics, as I am sure the hon. Lady has, on the numbers of patients and out-of-hours doctors. They vary considerably, and I want to engage with doctors' organisations to ensure that we do not need such a minimum standard.

David Drew: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the last thing that we need is another group of professionals being forced out of the NHS, as would happen if the Conservative party's proposals were taken seriously? Will he look at how we handle people with mental health problems and how they engage with the out-of-hours service, because there seems to be some variation across the country? In particular, what responsibilities do the different trusts that engage with such people have in the out-of-hours period?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right that there is a difference between the Conservative party and us. As I understand it, the former wants to transfer responsibility to GPs. We take the view, however, that we should not force that responsibility on to GPs, but that they should be more involved in how those services are commissioned.
	It certainly is the case that, in some areas, out-of-hours mental health provision needs to be looked at with great care, because its quality is crucial, particularly when those with mental health problems have an episode that needs urgent attention.

Richard Taylor: As I understand it, the basic fault with Dr. Ubani was that he did not even know the dose of diamorphine, which is why I am so pleased with the emphasis on the greater involvement of local GPs in the commissioning, design and, in some cases, provision of the service. Will the Minister therefore support me in supporting the bid for out-of-hours services in Worcestershire that has the approval of local GPs?

Mike O'Brien: The discussion on the out-of-hours service needs to be with the local primary care trust, but the hon. Gentleman needs to ensure that local GPs and doctors are involved in some of those discussions.

Peter Bone: Will the Minister let the GMC test the competency and language abilities of EU doctors before they are registered? Will he put the lives of British patients before EU law?

Mike O'Brien: It is not about EU law; it is about testing and ensuring that the tests are done by the people who are legally responsible for ensuring that GPs speak English before they provide out-of-hours care. That responsibility is currently with the PCTs. My concern is that those requirements be met-they are legal requirements, they ought to be being met now, and PCTs have been told that they must meet them.

Daniel Rogerson: Does not the Minister agree that, in the issuing of some contracts during the previous round, PCTs seemed to decide that they wanted to drive down costs above all other considerations for out-of-hours contracts? Some of those deals looked too good to be true, and have turned out to be too good to be true.

Mike O'Brien: Funding for out-of-hours contracts has risen significantly in recent years. The spend by PCTs has risen from £209 million in 2004 to £378 million in 2008-09, so considerable funding has been put into it. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that PCTs have a responsibility above all to safeguard the patient. That is their primary responsibility. A secondary one is to ensure that they do it with value for money.

Chloe Smith: I regret to report to the House that my constituent Mrs. Marjorie Alderson had a difficult experience with out-of-hours care. I am particularly sad to say that she has since passed away, but her daughters have been active in highlighting the difficulties faced in Norfolk. I would particularly appreciate the Minister's reassurance that he will look seriously at what it takes to attract doctors to work in the out-of-hours service. I have had various comments from medical professionals to suggest that that is a particular difficulty.

Mike O'Brien: May I extend my condolences to the family of Marjorie Alderson? As for attracting doctors, the hon. Lady is right: some parts of the country seem to be experiencing difficulties, whereas others are not. That is one of the points to come out of the report by Dr. Colin-Thomé and Professor Field, as well as my discussions with those in some out-of-hours services. I am not entirely clear, in that the issue does not seem to be funding or how much the GPs are paid. Rather, there seems to be a reluctance among GPs in some areas to get involved in out-of-hours services, whereas in other areas they are anxious to get involved. It is important to get to the bottom of that and identify exactly why the problem that the hon. Lady has identified is occurring.

Bernard Jenkin: Has the Minister done any analysis of the disparities in costs between different out-of-hours contracts? Is he aware of the disparities between the costs that the Ministry of Defence pays? In one case it pays £20,000 a year for 17,000 soldiers, but in another it pays £278,000 for 20,000 soldiers, which is considerably more. Why should the Ministry of Defence pay for out-of-hours care for its soldiers when soldiers pay tax and should get that service on the national health service anyway?

Mike O'Brien: The Ministry of Defence wants to ensure that particular facilities are available to it. Therefore, some want to fund those facilities themselves. That is, in a sense, a matter for the MOD. As for variations in cost between PCTs, that is an issue that we need to look into with care. I am satisfied that the broad run of PCTs is trying to get both value for money and a good quality of service, and that those PCTs are indeed delivering that. However, one or two PCTs are looking more at cost than at patient safety.

David Heath: To bring the Minister back to rural areas, is not another factor the availability and accessibility of accident and emergency units? My constituency covers 900 square miles. There is not a single A and E unit in my constituency, nor is a single out-of-hours doctor based there. Do we not need better cover than the four cars that currently provide for the whole of Somerset? Should there not be an assumption that community hospitals will have at least an evening treatment centre, with a doctor available to look after people out of hours?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues. As for provision in his local area, the issue that we have faced over a number of decades is that power is being devolved. That means that we are very reliant on local PCTs to make local decisions. We can have minimum standards, but we cannot rewrite the entire framework in which PCTs operate-in other words, take away their flexibility to respond to local need. Getting the balance right is quite tricky, but it is important that we work on getting it precisely right.

Anne McIntosh: I should declare an interest: my brother works for the out-of-hours service in North Yorkshire, although we have not discussed the issue. Is not the heart of the matter the fact that only in the UK has the system of family doctors and GP services developed to the extent that it has developed here? No one else is in quite the same position-or, possibly, no one else is better qualified-to judge that the PCT is not qualified to judge whether a GP here, or a medically qualified doctor in Germany or another EEA country, is fit to operate our out-of-hours service. I am not sure that what the Minister has told the House today fundamentally addresses that point.

Mike O'Brien: We need to ensure that doctors are properly qualified. It is a requirement that PCTs should not allow anything that might mean that the GPs they employ are not capable of being GPs. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have proper induction and proper training. We must ensure that GPs are capable of doing the work that they are employed to do. It is not so much a matter of the EU; rather, it is a matter of ensuring that if someone comes into an area, the PCT and the providers have done the checks and ensured that that GP knows what they are doing and are safe.

John Pugh: Why is the Minister so opposed to specifying a minimum ratio of medical personnel to population? Surely there is a level that is clinically unsafe, and we ought to specify it.

Mike O'Brien: This is dependent on a number of factors, including the size of the area, the amount of time it takes to get to people, and the level of demand in the area. That is why the PCTs have to ensure that proper medical issues are looked at, and that the level of cover and provision is adequate to ensure that people get the quality of service that they need. Checks should be being done now, but I still want to consider whether we need a national minimum standard. The requirements for the ratios to be right from a medical point of view are already there.

Bob Spink: Is the Minister satisfied that the greater use of our generally excellent ambulance service in some areas is not part of the problem?

Mike O'Brien: I do not think that it is. There is a lot of increase in demand on the ambulance service, and we are working through some of the issues relating to that increase. Much of it, however, is occurring during the daytime, rather than at night. I would need to get more research done before I could answer in depth the hon. Gentleman's question on whether that relates directly to the issues around the out-of-hours service.

Andrew Pelling: The campaigning social issues journalist Aline Nassif revealed in the  Croydon Advertiser last Friday that our population of 370,000 is covered by only three GPs between midnight and 8 am. Does the Minister really feel that that is clinically safe?

Mike O'Brien: Decisions on clinical safety should be made by people who are clinically qualified, rather than by me as a Minister. It is a requirement for the PCT to ensure that there is appropriate clinical supervision of the provision, that there is an appropriate number of GPs for the population, and that the cover is safe. That is a legal requirement, and the PCTs should be doing that.

Point of Order

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know how much importance you place on timely answers being provided to questions posed by Members of the House. Could you give me some advice on how I might ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions does a little better at answering its questions? I have tabled 30 questions that have now passed their due date without being answered. To be fair, most of them are due to be answered in February, but the worst instance dates back to 30 November last year. The most embarrassing example is from 14 December, when I asked the Secretary of State how many and what percentage of questions tabled for written answer on a named day had had a substantive answer. Every other Department has managed to answer that question in a timely manner, but I suspect, given that I have not had an answer from the DWP, that its response will be "Not very many". What can I do to get more timely answers?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I understand why he feels disquiet about this matter. I wondered for a moment whether we were going to get a Cook's tour of his questions to which Ministers had so far failed to respond. He is right to say that I attach a premium to prompt and informative answers from Ministers to questions from hon. Members, whether those questions are written or oral. He is a keen student of these matters and a regular and substantial tabler of questions, and he will also be aware of the developing system of transparency, whereby it can readily be seen at a glance whether a question has been answered or not.
	I would like to say, perhaps a little speculatively, to the hon. Gentleman that I have found, over the years, that when a Member complains about an unanswered question or letter, either through a further question on the Order Paper or by raising a point of order on the Floor of the House, that often serves speedily to concentrate the minds of Ministers. There are a number of Ministers on the Treasury Bench at the moment, and I feel sure that they are listening attentively to the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. I hope that that is helpful.

Mark Harper: I am grateful.

Mr. Speaker: Good. If there are no further points of order, we shall move to the presentation of Bills.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Climate Change (Sectoral Targets) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. Martin Caton, supported by Colin Challen, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Michael Meacher, Dan Rogerson, Alan Simpson, Dr. Desmond Turner and Joan Walley presented a Bill to set targets relating to energy generation and consumption; to make provision for the sectoral targets to be met; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed (Bill 64).

Environmental Protection  (Fly-Tipping Reporting)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Joan Ryan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to supply regular data to the Environment Agency on their response time to incidents of fly-tipping; and for connected purposes.
	Fly-tipping blights communities; it causes pollution and destroys wildlife; it attracts vermin and can encourage arson; and it is also just plain unsightly. We all want to feel proud of where we live, but too often problems such as fly-tipping and litter and graffiti and vandalism makes people's lives a misery.
	The Government have taken tough action to tackle fly-tipping. Much has been done to increase the powers available to local authorities in taking action against fly-tippers. We have substantially increased the penalties available to courts to punish those convicted of fly-tipping, but for too many people in too many places, fly-tipping still scars our communities and the extent of the problem is shocking, if not-sadly- entirely unsurprising.
	Last year, there were more than a million incidents of fly-tipping-1.16 million to be exact, and the clean-up costs come in at somewhere between £100 million and £150 million. Even those figures, however, are likely significantly to underestimate the true extent of the problem. For one thing, they include only the reported cases of fly-tipping, while many incidents go unreported. For another, only fly-tipping on public land is counted so the figures do not include incidents of fly-tipping on private land, which is the responsibility of the owner of the site. The conclusion, though, is clear: fly-tipping is a widespread and serious problem-one that degrades our environment, costs our economy and damages our community.
	Enfield suffers from particularly high levels of fly-tipping. The average local authority deals with about 250 incidents of fly-tipping a month. In Enfield, in November 2009 alone, there were nearly 1,400 reported cases of fly-tipping; and over the course of a year, we face not far off 10,000 reported incidents of fly-tipping. That gives us a sense of the scale of the problem we face with fly-tipping in Enfield. Open spaces, alleyways and even beauty spots are often disfigured by rotting black sacks, discarded tyres and a mixture of almost every conceivable household item. The need for further action, then, is obvious.
	Since 2004, local authorities have been required to supply information detailing the number of incidents of fly-tipping, the number of enforcement actions, such as prosecutions or fines, and clean-up costs to the Environment Agency-but not how quickly the rubbish is actually removed. The residents I meet in Enfield are not really interested in the type of mattresses that have been dumped down their street or the number of black sacks that block their drive. They just want them removed-and they want them removed quickly.
	Yet one of the most common complaints I receive is the time it takes to deal with fly-tipping. Residents tell me that they can be waiting weeks for rubbish to be cleared-and I doubt that the problem is confined to Enfield-so we need to make local authorities more responsive to local residents. We need to encourage them to tackle the scourge of fly-tipping with the urgency it deserves.
	I believe that making local authorities publish their response times, as my Bill seeks to do, would reduce the time it takes them to remove fly-tipping. Every local authority would be able to see how well they performed and how much better they could do. No local authority would want the dubious title of "the slowest council in Britain to deal with fly-tipping", and no voter would tolerate a council that dragged its heels in removing rubbish. Just as we ask schools to publish their exam results and hospitals to disclose their waiting lists, and just as we require train-operating companies to report the number of delays and cancellations, so, too, we should ask local authorities to publish their response time to incidents of fly-tipping.
	Since 2004, local authorities have been required to report the number of incidents of fly-tipping and their enforcement actions-and rightly so, in my view, as since this requirement was introduced, councils have taken tougher action to combat fly-tipping. As a result, the amount of fly-tipping across the country has gone down and the number of enforcement actions, fines and prosecutions has gone up. In the last year alone, there has been a 9 per cent. decrease in fly-tipping throughout the country. Sadly that is not the case in Enfield, where since the closure of the Carterhatch recycling centre in 2006-against which I campaigned, along with thousands of local residents-fly-tipping has increased threefold, just as we said it would.
	If making local authorities publish information about fly-tipping has encouraged them to take tougher action, we might assume that making them publish the time that it takes to respond to reports of fly-tipping would make them quicker at cleaning up the results. Publishing response times is not just about getting councils to remove rubbish more quickly, important though that is; it is also about reducing the amount of fly-tipping in the first place. Removing rubbish quickly would also act as a deterrent to fly-tippers.
	It is easy to see what happens. One black bag that is not removed quickly attracts another. I observe that for myself when I am out and about in my constituency, and I am sure that the same applies to other Members. The three black bags dumped at the end of a row of houses become four the next day, and five the day after that. Not removing fly-tipped rubbish sends others the message that fly-tipping is tolerated, that rubbish can be dumped, and that no one cares about the area. It also has a snowball effect: small acts of fly-tipping encourage more fly-tipping and larger amounts of rubbish, which attract vermin and become a public health hazard. The more rubbish is dumped and the longer it is left, the more likely are acts of vandalism and graffiti, which in turn attract even more damage and other more serious crimes, making the whole problem more difficult and more expensive to solve. As with so many problems, it is cheaper and easier to nip it in the bud than to allow it to grow.
	It is an extremely simple change that I seek: one that has little or no cost implications, and does not place any extra burden on local authorities. Authorities are already required to provide the Environment Agency with extensive information about fly-tipping in their areas. They must tell the agency how much fly-tipping takes place, how they deal with it, and how much it costs to clear it up. My Bill would simply ask them to submit information on their response times to the agency, alongside the data that they are already obliged to give it.
	It is inconceivable that local authorities do not already maintain records of some kind or other of their response times. This is, after all, what residents are most concerned about. Surely local authorities must already log the time when a report of fly-tipping is received, and when some sort of action is taken. If they did not, how would they know whether they had dealt with a particular case? If they already have that information on file, why can it not be given to the Environment Agency at the time when all the other fly-tipping data are supplied?
	That is the simple change that my Bill seeks to achieve-a simple change which I believe could prove hugely positive for the residents whom I represent and the community that I serve. The residents whom I meet out and about in Enfield tell me that all they want is to live somewhere decent and to be able to feel proud of where they live. Is that really too much to ask? I do not think so, and for that reason I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Joan Ryan, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Fiona Mactaggart, David Cairns and Ms Karen Buck present the Bill.
	Joan Ryan accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 April , and to be printed (Bill 65).

Crime and security Bill (programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the Order of 18 January 2010 (Crime and Security Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) Paragraph 2 shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 25 February 2010.- (Kerry McCarthy.)
	 Question agreed to.

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill (Money) (No. 3)

Queen's recommendation signified.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required by the Electoral Commission to meet-
	(a) the charges payable to counting officers in connection with a referendum held on the voting system for parliamentary elections; and
	(b) sums payable in respect of increases in superannuation contributions required to be paid by local authorities in consequence of fees paid as part of those charges.- (Kerry McCarthy.)

Douglas Hogg: I rise to oppose this money resolution on several grounds. First, it meets no perceived need. It has no justification, and it would also involve a wanton waste of public money. It is an election gimmick thought up by a discredited Prime Minister hoping to extend his days in office by some shady deal with the Liberal Democrats-and he should remember that although he can hire a Liberal Democrat, he cannot rely upon him.
	In addressing the money resolution, the House should consider the following facts. The Prime Minister has now been in office, either as Prime Minister or Chancellor, for 12 years, and at no time has he shown the slightest interest in electoral reform. Indeed, the Ashdown diaries, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) mentioned a few weeks ago, make it absolutely plain that the Prime Minister opposed the deal on electoral reform when Tony Blair and Lord Ashdown discussed that, so what we are dealing with here is an act of pure political cynicism. The Prime Minister refused to fund a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, although he had promised that, but he now wants us to fund a referendum on a change that he has always opposed.
	This money resolution also illustrates the profligacy of the Prime Minister. He wants us to spend public money on something we do not want, even though that money is not readily available, thus ratcheting up debt and taxation, and his sole motive is personal ambition cloaked in the language of moral purpose. This House has heard too much about the moral compass to be readily deceived.
	We should also consider the intellectual dishonesty involved. We are being asked to spend public money on the alternative vote, but there are many other ways of electing a Parliament, of course. Some of them appear on the amendment paper. The Liberal Democrats favour the single transferable vote, as spelled out in amendment (b) to new clause 88. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) favours the "two-round runoff system" in amendment (j) to that new clause, while the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) refers to the top-up system in amendments (m) and (p). In common, I suspect, with most Conservative Members, I prefer first past the post, but the Prime Minister, without proper consultation-indeed, without any consultation at all-wants to spend public money to promote not a broad debate on the merits of electoral reform, but a narrow proposal, which in the dark watches of the night, if not the dark watches of his soul, he thinks might favour his electoral prospects.

John Gummer: I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend has thought about this himself in the dark watches of the night, but am I not right in saying that AV has been chosen because it is the only system that, had it been in force in the last election, would have produced an even more unfair-if that is the right word-result than the system we have?

Douglas Hogg: Yes, indeed. It has the curious property of producing not the most popular representative, but the least popular. That is its curious characteristic. The House should note, too, how the question will be framed-not after full debate in this House on an amendable motion, where all the options can be canvassed and included, but through an unamendable order, almost certainly debated in quick time and subject to intensive whipping. That is what this money resolution seeks to propose. Thus the Prime Minister proposes to dispose of a system of election that has carried this country through war and tribulations.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. May I inform him, as joint chairman together with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe) of the all-party group on first past the post, that the largest contingent of that all-party group is made up of Labour Scottish MPs who have seen at first hand the chaos and mayhem that this system has brought to elections north of the border?

Douglas Hogg: Had those Members the courage of their convictions, they would be voting against it today.

Hugh Bayley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least acknowledge that the alternative vote system is not the system used north of the border, as his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) mistakenly told the House?

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) will doubtless seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not going to fall into an argument about this, but what is certainly true is that most of the Scottish Members-and indeed, I gather, at least 40 other Labour MPs-would prefer not to see the Prime Minister's venture being carried through.
	I want to conclude with the following observation. The Prime Minister wants to spend public money on a venture for which there is neither justification nor public demand. It is true that politicians, politics and Parliament have sunk low in public esteem-I recognise that fact-but a change in the voting system, funded by the money resolution before us, will not address that. I believe that the principal reason that we are so disliked is that the public have come to realise what most of us know: namely, that we are not doing the job that we ought to be doing. We are failing to hold the Executive to account. We are failing to scrutinise legislation in the way in which it ought to be scrutinised. We have allowed the powers of this House to be usurped by Government and we have created the elected dictatorship.

Andrew Pelling: Would it not be possible for Members of this House to take back that power from the Whips? It is the Whips, with their wily ways, who stop us. Surely it would be better-the debate resonates back to the Chartists-to have a referendum on allowing a fifth of us to retire every year and on having yearly elections to this Parliament. In that way, we would be closer to the people, not necessarily-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) responds to that intervention, may I remind him and the House that we are debating quite a narrowly drawn money resolution at the moment? There will be ample opportunity to consider the other merits of the matters when we move into Committee.

Douglas Hogg: I was rather minded of that before you intervened, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me make this response, if I might, to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling). I have always and often criticised the Whips in this place-that is true-but I do not believe that they are the fundamental problem. I believe that the cowardice of Members is the ultimate problem. I do not believe that we will solve this issue unless we have true separation of powers, but I recognise that that is extraordinarily difficult to achieve.
	Let me revert to the subject of the money resolution. The issue is profound, but it will not be solved by the alternative vote. The money resolution will simply deepen public disdain. It will be seen as a misuse of public money by a Prime Minister who has become arrogant in office, undemocratic by habit and craven by instinct. This House can deny him the money this afternoon, and we should do so.

Richard Shepherd: I follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) with great pleasure. This morning, after I had struggled into the House through the tumbleweed on the floor, the gales blowing through and the emptiness of our proceedings, I noticed that a money resolution was, unusually, tabled for debate before the business that we are to discuss. Given that it was not, as my right hon. and learned Friend has rightly pointed out, on the Lisbon treaty or anything like that, I read what it was about. I note that it shows the fatuity of the Bill, which produces babies every time we do anything on it. We are debating money resolution No. 3; each such resolution charts a special little sub-Bill that is stuck into the midst of it. So, as we continue our proceedings on the Bill, we are now tacking on another Bill-as that is what it is. The money resolution represents what should be a separate Bill in its own right. As my right hon. and learned Friend has indicated, if it were a Bill, we would be able to explore all the arguments on this issue.
	I know that the Prime Minister has abolished boom and bust, and I now know that he wants to reform our voting system, but let me make an observation. The first-past-the-post voting system goes back to before time almost. It was the way by which, in ancient societies, in a one-vote system, the individual who had the most votes came first. It was the most simple rubric for determining who should be elected. That is how things were, but there has been a reversion. I am told that the Liberal Democrats support the money resolution and the purposes behind it. They have forgotten the advice of Lord Jenkins in his commission's report. The system that we are debating cannot be said to be an equal or proportionate system any more than the first-past-the-post system can. It therefore means that the least-objectionable candidate is elected. I note that the Jenkins report talked about seeking not consent but acquiescence. There is no sense of consent regarding the motion, certainly on the Conservative side, and the best that the Government can seek is acquiescence to it. I do not acquiesce to the money resolution; I note simply that it is a distraction.

Frank Field: I am sorry that I did not hear the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but the money resolution is important only if we think that the Bill is going anywhere, is it not?

Richard Shepherd: That is the point that I want to emphasise. If we defeat the money resolution, we will not have dealt with the rest of the debate, but there will be no money to fulfil the expectations that come from it. That is why I urge the House to reject the motion. If it genuinely believes that there is merit in the resolution, there should be a full and proper Bill that will enable us to debate the views of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives and other varied views across the House. No costing is associated with this matter. In a time of economic crisis, the resolution is a wild distraction that emphasises the futility of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, with all its add-ons.

Tom Levitt: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has won a seat in this place in seven general elections. In how many of those elections did he achieve 50 per cent. or more of the vote? I know that he did not in the last election. Would it not be nice for him to know that he had at least the conditional support of more than 50 per cent. of those who turned out?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to intervene again, but we are talking simply about the expenses involved in this matter, not the details of the matter itself, which must wait until we are in Committee.

Richard Shepherd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have liked to reply "five" to that question, but that would not be appropriate, as you have noted.
	I was talking about expenditure, about the lack of estimates and about the distraction from substantial matters that this matter entails. For those reasons, I oppose the money resolution. I believe that in the dying days of this dying Parliament we should show some resolution along the lines that I have described. This House itself is dying. Parliament's purpose is to hold Governments to account on the expenditure of money. That is essential, as are the processes by which we look at that expenditure and the balance of the arguments that are put, yet today we have only 45 minutes for debate-and on most money resolutions we do not even get that.
	So I urge the House to reject with a cheer the nonsense that is this motion and this Bill. The sooner that we tell the Government that there is no business worth considering, the better. The people must determine the fate of every one of us here. We must give up absurd gestures such as this referendum proposal, which has been dreamed up and put on the Order Paper inside a week. The Government tell us that it is a serious constitutional measure that must be debated, even though there is no possibility of an outcome.

David Heath: You were correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to point out to the House that we are discussing a money resolution now, not the content of the amendments and new clauses coming up later in Committee. Many may say that the referendum proposal is merely a gimmick on the Prime Minister's part, but that is no of consequence in this debate.

Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I will give way later. The Government have been in power for 12 years and done nothing about electoral reform. A few weeks before a general election, they find that they have been converted but, again, that is not a matter for this debate on the money resolution-and neither is the fact that they are so irresolute that they cannot bring themselves to agree even with the proposal that they say that they want to put before the British people in a referendum.
	As has been pointed out, the system that would be the subject of the question in such a referendum is not a proportional one. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) was right to commend the single transferable vote as a proportional system, and we welcome his views. We hope that he will join us when we discuss the amendment that would enable that system to be the question to be put before the people in a referendum.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I said that I would give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).

Douglas Hogg: The plain truth is that, if this is the useless gimmick that the hon. Gentleman says that it is, we should not be paying for it.

David Heath: But ideas are not responsible for their authors. It may well be that, in the mind of the Prime Minister, this is a gimmick, but my point is that it may also be an idea worth putting before the British people.
	The key is that we must debate this Bill and amend it to ensure that a proper referendum is held at the proper time. That referendum must give the British people a proper choice about whether to maintain the present discredited system for electing Members to this House-this neanderthal system that is older than time itself. Conservative party members consider the present system to be out of date and do not use it to elect their leader, yet they believe it to be right for the election of Members to this House.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: No, as I am about to finish. The British people should be given a choice between the present system and a proper proportional system, and that is the question that should be put to them in a referendum. This Bill, if it becomes an Act, would enable such a referendum to take place, but people with a vested interest in maintaining the present rotten system say that they will obstruct it by preventing agreement to the money that it needs. I think ill of them for that.
	I believe that we should trust the British people-and not the opinions of those who benefit from the present unfair system. I now give way to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).

Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that there is no prospect of the amendment that he has tabled being carried by this House. I think that the gimmick that we are discussing would require expenditure of about £80 million of public money, at a time of financial constraint. He does not approve of the scheme, so does he think that all that money should be spent on it?

David Heath: I shall not prejudge the debate that we are about to have, but the hon. and learned Gentleman obviously feels that we should. He feels that, from his position, he knows the outcome, and he is not prepared to back the British people's judgment on the electoral system. I am prepared to trust the people; I am prepared to go along with that concept; and that is why I shall support the money resolution.

John Gummer: Earlier today we had a discussion about out-of-hours GP provision. In my constituency and the whole of Suffolk, including your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have enough money for more than three doctors to provide an out-of-hours service. We have no money for a whole series of important things; the leaders of both major political parties admit that we have to cut the crucial things that service our constituents; and the Government have proposed that we spend £80 million or thereabouts-they have not worked out how much-on a question that very few people in this House think suitable.
	This debate is about the money resolution, but the previous contribution was a revealing statement of Liberal party economics. It showed that the Liberal party does not believe that one discusses the money in any connection with the purpose for which it might be used. As for "ideas are not responsible for their authors," that is about as elliptical and confused a concept as the average Liberal Democrat party political broadcast; it is, indeed, typical Liberal confusion. There is nothing more confused than the Liberal Democrat party except the proposition that the Government have put before the House.
	The money resolution is, frankly, a scandal. My constituents do not have the wherewithal to keep our current systems going, because the Government have taken money from the national health service and local government and spread it elsewhere in order to distribute it to their heartlands. It is therefore a scandal to talk to my constituents about £80 million, and they will not forget it at the election. More importantly, the neighbouring constituencies, which are very marginal, will certainly not forget it. They will return to this House people more willing to care for the public finances.
	The reason why we are here is to defend the freedom of the people and to protect the taxpayer. The original purpose of this House was to ensure that the Executive did not spend money unwisely; did not spend money without due concern; did not spend money without exact accounting; and did not spend money in a way that the public felt unnecessary. That is why we are here.
	On this occasion, we are invited to spend money where there is no count; invited to spend money on something that the public has shown no concern for; and invited to spend money on asking a question that is not connected with the argument and not supported by anybody on any side of the argument except the Prime Minister, who has worked out-although I suspect that it was worked out for him-that this is the one change that would make the current system worse mathematically. We are invited to do so also before we have discussed the matter, and that is wholly contrary to the way in which the money resolution is normally placed.

Jack Straw: indicated dissent.

John Gummer: In the old days, which the right hon. Gentleman might remember, we discussed the issue first and then we came to the money resolution, because we had decided that the issue was one on which it was worth spending the money. In this case, we are discussing the money resolution first, because we know perfectly well that if the Government actually faced the issue, they would find it very difficult to get even their own supporters behind them.

Richard Shepherd: We know the reason why; it was to prevent the House from wasting 40 minutes after 10 o'clock, as the Government then saw it. So they changed the procedures of the House yet again.

John Gummer: That reminds us why this is such an outrage and such a scandal. The reason why the House is not keeping the Government under control is that the Government took advantage of a point at which large numbers of hon. Members were new to say that they were modernising the system in the House, when in fact they were taking powers away from the House and depositing them in their own pocket. That is what they did.
	The Government also did two other things. They introduced a system of guillotines, which is entirely foreign to this country and stops the proper debate and discussion of motions such as this. Secondly, they changed the system on money, so that we were gulled into a position in which the House was able to vote for money on subjects that it did not want for sums that it did not compute. For that reason, of all the issues that we have had before the House, this motion is more redolent of the smell at the heart of this Government-the disgracefully decaying Government who are before us-and the stench of a Prime Minister who puts his own future before that of this nation.

Patrick Cormack: As I follow my right hon. Friend's splendid speech, I am tempted to remember the American politician who talked of an opponent being like "rotten mackerel by moonlight" that "stinks".
	This stinks. The motion is a most appalling illustration, on the one hand, of the prodigality of the Prime Minister and, on the other, of the contempt in which the Government hold this House of Commons. Here we are in the dying days of a decaying Parliament, and what should we be doing to restore the reputation of this honourable House? We should be devoting such time as we have between now and going to the polls to discussing the great issues of the day.
	Can this motion, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as one of the great issues of the day? It is utterly irrelevant to our constituents' interests and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has just illustrated, it proposes the expenditure of £80 million. There is not a Member of the House who could not get inestimable benefits for his or her constituents for a 10th of that.
	I do not want to take long, because I want to direct my remarks entirely to the motion before us. The other thing is this. The motion not only illustrates the prodigality of the Prime Minister-with his busted reputation for financial acumen, which went down the drain a very long time ago-but shows that the Government have no place in their affections or regard for Parliament. They are thrashing around like a dying tyrant, seeking to use their majority to take the public eye off the things that really matter and, perhaps, to save their skins in what they think might become a deal in the future-we remember the Lib-Lab pact, Mr. Deputy Speaker-with those who might come to their aid and succour.
	If anything ought to make the people of this country realise that we are going through a shoddy, shabby exercise this afternoon, it is this debate. I very much hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will go into the Lobby, as I shall, to try to deny this useless expenditure-this prodigal waste of money-that would be a disgrace to the Government, if we allow them to get away with it.

Dominic Grieve: When the Government came up with these proposals, they could not, when asked, provide costings on how much they would have to spend in order to allow this referendum to take place. Only bit by bit has the figure of £80 million gradually been extracted as the economic cost of carrying it out, and even that-I wait to hear from the Secretary of State in a few minutes-appears to be far from clear. That is £80 million for a gimmick that the Government wish to foist on the electorate, and at a time when they keep pointing out to us that savings are going to have to be made and that every pound matters.
	I do not know where the £80 million is supposed to come from, but on my calculation it would pay for the prison places needed to scrap the early release scheme, which the Secretary of State says is so important to him; it would fund 15 rape crisis centres, if that is what he wants to do out of the justice budget; and it would enable him to drop the disgraceful policy of refusing to meet the legal costs of acquitted defendants who do not enjoy legal aid. All those things could be done, and I have to say to him that that would be money much better spent.
	For those reasons, the House should have the courage to say that £80 million misspent is a travesty and a denial of our responsibility to the electorate, and it should reject this motion.

Jack Straw: I have sat in this House for a very long time, and rarely have I heard such hyperbole and abuse in place of serious argument. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that information about the cost had to be extracted from us. That is not so: we have answered a whole series of parliamentary questions on this. The cost of a referendum is hardly a surprise. Given that it involves all the electors of the United Kingdom and similar provisions for Freepost and so on, it comes to about the same as the cost of a general election, which is indeed about £80 million. Which Department will the money come from? It will come from the Consolidated Fund, as all electoral expenditure does. Of course it is £80 million, but it is £80 million as a single piece of expenditure in a single year. Why is there no direct parallel with, for example, the cost of providing additional prison places? Because, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he ever ends up in the position of having to negotiate with the Treasury for a departmental budget, there is a world of difference between single, one-off expenditure and continuing expenditure that involves costs every year.
	I have a lot of time for the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but he has a bit of gall complaining about the amount of money that he claims is not available for the health service in his constituency. The amount of money spent on health services in his constituency has more than doubled, if not trebled, in real terms since 1997. There will not be a health facility in his constituency, nor a school, that has not significantly improved.

John Gummer: I am looking forward to having the precise figures on that, because it certainly does not characterise what is happening in the health service in my constituency. Indeed, my local health professionals are very clear that they cannot provide the service that they want to provide because they are among the lowest quintile in the country, whereas they used to be much higher when age was taken into account, which it no longer is in the same way.

Jack Straw: I am very happy to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman is provided with that information.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that in the course of the debates about whether we should have had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, the argument that we used was one of money. Many arguments were used about why the Lisbon treaty did not require a referendum, but there was never, in my recollection, any suggestion whatsoever that cost was one of them. Indeed, it scarcely lies well in the mouths of Conservatives, who have repeatedly called for referendums on such issues, now to deny a referendum on a most central issue, namely how this country should vote.

Andrew Tyrie: rose-

David Evennett: rose-

Jack Straw: I will not give way, because I only have a short time.
	We have heard suggestions that the idea of the alternative vote is some great anathema, and that alternatives to first past the post have never been considered. We will come on to that in more detail in Committee, but that is an extraordinary suggestion. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, the Conservative party elected the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) as its leader not by first past the post but by the alternative vote. [Hon. Members: "Gimmick!"] Well, we know that. But it gets better-or worse, depending on one's point of view. It will be within the recollection of the House that just two weeks ago we had a great debate about whether we should end by-elections for hereditary peers. We voted for that, and so did the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives voted to support the system of electing hereditary peers. May I ask whether any Opposition right hon. or hon. Member knows what the system of elections for hereditary peers is?

Peter Tapsell: rose-

Jack Straw: Ah, come on!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the House of what I said earlier? We should confine our remarks to the money involved in the measure before us, and we certainly should not go down the kind of avenue that the Secretary of State is in danger of straying down.

Peter Tapsell: May I just point out a mathematical fact to the Secretary of State? The leader of the Conservative party was not elected by the alternative vote, because there were only two candidates.

Jack Straw: That does not stop it being an alternative.
	To revert to my point, no Opposition Member can tell me the system for the election of hereditary peers, which they defended. The answer is that it is the alternative vote. I have here the last result of an election of a Conservative peer, and-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am in danger of interrupting the Secretary of State too often, but I will continue to do so unless he comes back to the money resolution before the House.

Jack Straw: I was seeking to make the case for why this expenditure represents value for money, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is £1.20 per elector in the country. It is not correct to say that the issue has not been the subject of great consideration over many decades, as I will point out in my speech on new clause 88 in a moment. The truth is that a system of eliminating ballots is used by the Conservative party under its constitution, and it amounts to an extended form of the alternative vote. It is also used for the election of hereditary peers-a system that the Conservatives sought to defend less than two weeks ago. [Hon. Members: "You set it up!"] No, the House of Lords set up the system of elections, and the Conservatives have actively supported it. I have checked and checked again, and never once have the Conservatives at the other end of the corridor suggested that the first-past-the-post system should be used for the election of hereditary peers.

William Cash: Will the Secretary of State answer our very simple question about the intellectual dishonesty that lies behind the proposals and about the fact that throwing all this money at this absurd proposal is no more than a cynical ploy to try to increase the Labour party's opportunity to get a bigger electoral result? Is that not really the point?

Jack Straw: If it were a cynical ploy, which it is not- [Interruption.] I could understand that argument if we were seeking to introduce this change without any referendum of the British people. The hon. Gentleman is a leading proponent of referendums, and I have sat in this House time and again listening to him. On any basis, how we elect our Members of Parliament is a rather more important matter-or, in his view, an even more important matter-than whether we are subject to the Lisbon treaty.
	What we are proposing-this is all that we are proposing-is to provide for the money so that there can be a referendum over the next 20 months, so that not this House, nor any so-called deal, but the British people, in the secrecy of the ballot booth, determine what system, between first past the post and the alternative vote, will apply. I cannot for the life of me see why the Conservatives do not have the courage of their convictions to be ready to argue in favour of first past the post-as many Labour Members may well do-before the British people in a properly established and regulated referendum.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 357, Noes 180.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

[Relevant documents: Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill, Session 2007-08, HC 551-I and-II, and the Government response, Cm 7690. Tenth Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Session 2007-08, on Constitutional Renewal: Draft Bill and White Paper, HC 499, and the Government response, Cm 7688. Fourth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2009-10, on Legislative Scrutiny: Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill; Video Recordings Bill, HC 249. The Scottish Parliament has passed a Legislative Consent Resolution in respect of this Bill. Copies of the Resolution are available in the Vote Office.]

[6th Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee
	Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

New Clause 88
	 — 
	Referendum on voting systems

'(1) A referendum is to be held, no later than 31 October 2011, on the voting system for parliamentary elections.
	(2) The Secretary of State must-
	(a) present to Parliament a Command Paper describing an alternative-vote system for consideration by voters in the referendum;
	(b) by order made by statutory instrument specify the question to be asked in the referendum (and any statement that is to precede the question) and fix the date of the poll.
	(3) The question specified under subsection (2)(b) must ask voters whether they would prefer the alternative-vote system described in the Command Paper to be used for parliamentary elections instead of the existing voting system (commonly referred to as "first past the post").
	Any form of words to that effect may be used.
	(4) In this section "alternative-vote system" means a system under which, for each constituency-
	(a) one candidate is elected;
	(b) voters must indicate their first-choice candidate and may also rank any or all of the other candidates in order of preference;
	(c) votes are allocated to candidates in accordance with voters' first choices and, if one candidate has more votes than the other candidates put together, that candidate is elected;
	(d) if not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and that candidate's votes are dealt with as follows-
	(i) each vote cast by a voter who also ranked one or more of the remaining candidates is reallocated to that remaining candidate or (as the case may be) to the one that the voter ranked highest;
	(ii) any votes not reallocated play no further part in the counting;
	(e) if one candidate now has more votes than the other remaining candidates put together, that candidate is elected;
	(f) if not, the process mentioned in paragraph (d) is repeated as many times as necessary until one candidate has more votes than the other remaining candidates put together, and so is elected.
	(5) The reference in subsection (4)(d) to the candidate with the fewest votes, in a case where there are two or more candidates with fewer votes than the others but an equal number to each other, is a reference to the candidate eliminated in accordance with whatever provision is made for that case.
	(6) The reference in subsection (4)(f) to the candidate with more votes than the other remaining candidates put together, in a case where there are only two remaining candidates and they have an equal number of votes, is a reference to the candidate elected in accordance with whatever provision is made for that case.
	(7) A statutory instrument specifying the question to be asked in the referendum or fixing the date of the poll may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	(8) Subsection (1) and sections [Entitlement to vote] to [Restriction on legal challenge to referendum result] do not apply (and no further duty arises under subsection (2)(b)) if either House of Parliament, on a motion to approve a draft laid under subsection (7), decides not to approve it (unless the Secretary of State decides to lay the draft again under subsection (7), or to lay a revised draft under that subsection, and the re-laid or revised draft is approved by a resolution of each House).'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (a), leave out "31 October" and insert "30 May".
	Amendment (b), leave out "an alternative-vote" in subsection (2)(a) and insert "a single transferable vote".
	Amendment (c), leave out "the alternative-vote" in subsection (3) and insert "a single transferable vote".
	Amendment (j), leave out "describing an alternative-vote system" and insert
	"setting out the mechanism, and the advantages and disadvantages, of
	(a) an alternative-vote system,
	(b) a two-round runoff system,
	(c) the existing voting system (commonly referred to as "first past the post").".
	Amendment (k), leave out from 'voters' to end of line 12 and insert
	"to select one of three options set out in the Command Paper.".
	Amendment (l), at end insert-
	"(6A) In this section "two-round runoff system" means a system under which, for each constituency-
	(a) one candidate is elected;
	(b) a second ballot may be held if a candidate is not elected on the first ballot;
	(c) for a candidate to be elected they must secure more than fifty per cent. of the votes cast on either the first or second ballot;
	(d) on the first ballot voters must nominate a single candidate;
	(e) on the first ballot there is no limit to the number of candidates which may stand;
	(f) votes are allocated to candidates and, if one candidate has more than fifty per cent. of the votes cast, that candidate is elected;
	(g) if not, the two candidates with the most votes on the first ballot enter a second ballot to be dealt with as follows-
	(i) the second ballot must be held one week after the first ballot;
	(ii) voters must nominate a single candidate;
	(iii) no new candidate may enter the second ballot;
	(iv) votes are allocated to candidates and the candidate with the most votes is elected;
	(h) if in the second ballot it appears that there is an equality of votes between both candidates, the returning officer shall decide between them by lot and proceed as if the candidate on whom the lot then falls had received an additional vote.".
	Amendment (e), leave out subsection (8).
	Government new clause 89- Entitlement to vote.
	Government new clause 90- Referendum period.
	Government new clause 91- Role of Electoral Commission.
	Government new clause 92- Payments to counting officers.
	Government new clause 93- Taxation of counting officer's account.
	Government new clause 94- Restriction on legal challenge to referendum result.
	Government new clause 95- Referendums: person may not be "responsible person" for more than one permitted participant.
	Government new clause 96- Referendums: expenses incurred by persons acting in concert.
	New clause 32- Referendum on electoral reform-
	"(1) The Secretary of State shall be under a duty to ensure that a referendum on reforming the electoral system for the House of Commons is held before 28 October 2010.
	(2) The referendum must offer a choice between the existing method of voting and a preferential system.
	(3) If the result of the referendum is in favour of changing the electoral system for the House of Commons, the Secretary of State shall be under a duty to lay implementing measures before Parliament within three months of the date of the referendum.
	(4) In this section-
	"implementing measures" means measures designed to and likely to implement the result of the referendum before the general election next following the referendum, and includes bills and statutory instruments;
	"preferential voting system" means a system of voting in which electors may express their support for individual candidates in order of preference and in which they are not restricted to expressing a fixed number of preferences.".
	Government amendment 136.
	Amendment 135, in clause 62, page 33, line 38, after "Part", insert
	"and section [ Referendum on electoral reform]".
	Government amendment 137.

Jack Straw: If I may, Mr. Haselhurst-

Hon. Members: Sir Alan!

Jack Straw: Sir Alan, I am sorry.

The Chairman: Order. I am touched, but if it is any difficulty for the Secretary of State, he could just say Mr. Chairman.

Jack Straw: Sir Alan, I apologise profusely.
	It might be convenient if I give the Committee notice-I have already given the Table Office and the official Opposition notice-in respect of new clause 98, in the names of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and several of her hon. Friends and my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith). It proposes that the counting of votes at the general election should take place within four hours of the close of the poll unless there are exceptional reasons. There was a discussion about that during Justice questions about an hour and a half ago, and I propose to attach my name to the new clause, so that it can be the subject of a vote.
	I say to my hon. Friends that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is proposing that there be a free vote on the Labour Benches. I would like to add a caveat. As is often the case, the wording of the new clause may need to be revised, but it was the view of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) and myself that, rather than leaving the matter entirely open until Report, it would be better for there to be a clear text in the Bill that could be amended later if necessary, and that a clear message went out to electoral registration officers now about the intent on both sides of the House.

Eleanor Laing: May I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his courage in adding his name and that of his right hon. Friend to our amendment? It has support on both sides of the House, and many people will be delighted at what he has done this afternoon. We accept entirely that the wording may have to be altered, and we will give him every support in doing so.

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady.

Robert Smith: If we are putting through new clauses without debate, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the programming for the next stage makes time to debate any necessary amendments to tidy up that new clause?

Jack Straw: What I can undertake to do is ensure that my name is attached to any amendments, so that they would have to be the subject of a vote. What I cannot guarantee absolutely is how much time would be available. However, I should have said to the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will share the draft text of any proposed amendments with all the other main parties represented in the Committee in advance of their being tabled.

Andrew Pelling: rose-

Jack Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not think that he has a party behind him.

Andrew Pelling: And the House would be a great deal better off if Members were independent. On the point about overnight counting, I won by 75 votes when I stood as a Conservative candidate, and there were three recounts. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that it is not right in a parliamentary democracy that the people who have to do the counting should do so when they are half awake? Surely whether counts take place in the morning or overnight is not such a great issue.

Jack Straw: New clause 98 provides for the counts beginning within four hours of the close of the poll. Everybody accepts that, when there is a requirement for a recount, the counting can be suspended until the following day, as is often the case. However, concern has been expressed in all parts of the House about a growing trend among returning officers to defer until the following day-for their own convenience and nobody else's-the counting of most of the constituencies which in the past have always been counted on the night of the election.

Bob Spink: rose-

Jack Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make some progress on the clauses before the Committee; I look forward to similar agreement across the Chamber in respect of those clauses.
	New clause 88 provides for a referendum on our voting system for the Westminster Parliament to be held by October 2011.

Patrick Cormack: rose-

Jack Straw: I will give way, but I need to make some progress first.
	That referendum will allow the British people to choose whether they wish to retain the present system of first past the post, or move to the alternative vote, which, as I think the Committee knows, is a system by which candidates are ranked in order of preference by voters. If on the first count no candidate has achieved 50 per cent. plus one of the votes cast, the candidates with the fewest first preferences are eliminated, with the second preferences counted, and so on. That is the same system, in conception, as eliminating ballots. However, I do not really need to spell that out to the Committee, because Members belonging to every party represented here will have direct experience of systems of eliminating ballots, whether they take place at a single moment or over an extended moment.

David Wilshire: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: In one second.
	All the major parties represented here have at the heart of the election of their leaders an electoral system that involves the progressive elimination of candidates. Sometimes elimination rounds are used. The Conservative party conducts sequential votes when there are more than two candidates, until the final two candidates are put to the membership. The Liberal Democrats use the single transferable vote, which amounts to the alternative vote when there is only a single post to be filled. The Labour party has long used the alternative vote for the election of its leader and deputy leader. It used to have lengthy eliminating ballots for local selections, but has now generally moved to the alternative vote system.

Dominic Grieve: rose-

Patrick Cormack: rose-

Jack Straw: If I may, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman first, and then to his hon. and learned Friend.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the Lord High Chancellor. He has a reputation of being a supporter of first past the post. If there is a referendum, on which side will he campaign?

Jack Straw: What I have long been a supporter of is-[Hon. Members: "Answer!"]-I am going to answer: majoritarian systems. If the hon. Gentleman, who is very assiduous, had bothered to read a very fine pamphlet written in 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), "Proportional misrepresentation: the case against PR in Britain", he would have seen that I gave support to the alternative vote. I am on record as having supported for getting on for a quarter of a century the alternative vote system for parliamentary elections. My passion is for majoritarian systems, as opposed to proportional representation, for all the reasons that are generally shared throughout the House. I must also tell the Committee that the new hardback copy of my right hon. Friend's important work is in such demand that, according to Amazon, a new copy will cost $600, although second-hand editions can still be had for four quid.

Dominic Grieve: I was a bit puzzled to hear the right hon. Gentleman praying in aid the Labour party's election system because, apart from the fact that the Prime Minister was not subjected to it, I seem to recollect that, under that system, one third of the vote is reserved for the union paymasters. I hope that the Justice Secretary is not about to offer that to the Committee as an example.

Jack Straw: That shows how little the hon. and learned Gentleman knows about the Labour party's system, which provides an opportunity for millions of individual members of trade unions to vote in a postal ballot for the candidates of their choice. The idea that the system is in the hands of a few trade union paymasters is completely incorrect.
	I should also like to remind Conservative Members of something that they learned only half an hour ago, and that might have come as a great surprise to them. The system of election for hereditary peers, which they are so passionate in supporting, and which they voted to continue just two weeks ago is-guess what-not a first-past-the-post system but an alternative vote system.

Alan Duncan: It is your system.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that it is our system, but, while the law provides that there has to be a system-this House agreed that-it was the other place that provided that system. Conservative peers could have objected to the use of the alternative vote at any stage over the past 10 years, but they have never done so. I therefore hope that we will hear no more about the idea that the alternative vote, or eliminating ballots, which are used by the Conservative party for the election of hereditary peers, have some fundamental flaw that is so dangerous that a choice between the alternative vote and first-past-the-post should not even be put to the electorate.

Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend has suggested that his own preference is for AV, but the Government set up a royal commission to look into this matter, and I wonder why they are not proposing to put forward the recommendation of the Jenkins commission in the referendum. It would certainly not be tainted by any party political considerations.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend will remember the debates that took place on the Jenkins commission when it reported to the House when I was Home Secretary, towards the end of 1999. It rapidly became clear that there was no consensus around it. What is more, with the passage of time, concern has been expressed about dual systems of membership, particularly in Scotland and Wales. Speaking personally, I happen to believe that the system of single-Member constituencies, in which one Member alone has the duty to represent everyone in that constituency or community, is fundamental to the workings of our democracy. That system gives a directness and authority to the relationship which does not exist in the same way under multi-Member constituency systems.
	Furthermore, I support majoritarian systems because majority Governments are far preferable to the weaker minority and coalition Governments that are almost invariably the consequence of systems of proportional representation. I thought that before I first came into the House; I thought it throughout the 18 years I spent on the Opposition Benches; and nothing I have seen of other countries' systems of proportional representation has convinced me that they have better alternatives.

Brian H Donohoe: Perhaps we could achieve consensus if we looked at the Scottish experience, where four different systems of voting are in place. Surely if we were to look at that and have a referendum, we could encompass those as part of the question, allowing people to choose the single system that they want for voting.

Jack Straw: I am glad that my hon. Friend acknowledges the importance of giving the British people a choice. We have to make a judgment about the alternatives to put before the British people-we have to make it; nobody else can, as it has to become law. My belief is that the best way to conduct a referendum is to confine it to a single institution-in this case, the Westminster Parliament. I understand my hon. Friend's concern; he and I have discussed on many occasions the dual-Member system in Scotland and the concerns expressed about it, but the fact that we are to have a referendum on this issue does not necessarily rule out the possibility in due course of having a referendum on the issue that my hon. Friend cares about.

Dominic Grieve: May I take the Secretary of State back to his reference to the Jenkins commission? On 2 June 1998, he said:
	"The Liberal Democrats and Labour agreed that the only fair way to put a choice to the British people was to give them a choice between two equals: between the first-past-the-post system-it would be absurd to suggest leaving it out-and another system carefully worked out by a relatively independent body."-[ Official Report, 2 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 188.]
	Where is the relatively independent body in these proposals?

Jack Straw: I have already explained that the truth about the Jenkins proposals-it became clear as people digested them-is that there was no consensus coalition at all in respect of them. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been the Justice spokesman for his party for close to 18 months now, and never once has he suggested that there should be a referendum on the Jenkins proposals.

David Howarth: May I take the Secretary of State back to his statement about single-Member representation? Is he proposing to abolish multi-member wards in local government?

Jack Straw: No, I am not. With great respect, the considerations that apply in local elections are different from those that apply to the dynamics of this House.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Jack Straw: I give way to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).

Daniel Kawczynski: Just a few short weeks ago in a Westminster Hall debate on proportional representation, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) gave me an assurance that this issue would not be debated in the House during this Session. May I ask what has happened since to make that promise no longer applicable?  [Interruption.]

Jack Straw: Well, my right hon. Friend says that he did not give that assurance and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise the matter again in his speech.

Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the recommendations of the Gould report, produced after the debacle of the May 2007 Scottish parliamentary elections, which were held on the same day as the local council elections. He will know that the strong recommendation made in that report was that two elections using different systems should not be held on the same day. Does he accept that if we move towards the AV system for the elections to this House, we can never again hold a general election on the same day as local authority elections?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I do not. I remember the Gould report and the circumstances that led up to it. I thought it made some important recommendations, but I do not believe that the fundamental problem that the Scottish system faced at that time was conducting two different elections on the same day. Within the whole of the UK, we regularly have two sets of elections using different systems. For example, European and local elections often take place on the same day and provided that those systems are properly explained to voters-this was the problem in Scotland when there were two sets of ballots on the same ballot paper-I believe that it is perfectly satisfactory to go ahead on the same day.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Jack Straw: I give way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), but then I want to make some progress.

Christopher Huhne: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Irish system proposed by the Liberal Democrats would deliver an overall majority on about 45 per cent. of the vote, as it has on many occasions in the Republic of Ireland since 1921. What share of the vote would he be prepared to regard as too low, either under first past the post or under the alternative vote when it came to first preferences? What percentage would mean that the Government were no longer legitimate-35, or even less?

Jack Straw: The fundamental problem that affects all voting systems is the fact that there is no way, mathematically, of translating votes cast and seats gained into power obtained.
	I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said on the radio this morning about the merits of the Irish system. I have two comments. First, the Irish constituencies, per Member, are significantly smaller than ours. There are 21,000 electors per Member of the Dáil. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting that the Irish system had avoided any scandals. Anyone with any knowledge of what has gone on in Ireland recently will recognise that we cannot really compete with the Irish when it comes to the continuation of scandals.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Jack Straw: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), but then I must make progress.

John Redwood: I agree with the Secretary of State about single-Member constituencies. As he wants change, however, he presumably thinks that Members here who did not secure 50 per cent. of the vote might have been better replaced by others. According to his research, how much would a Parliament elected under the proposed system differ from one elected under first past the post?

Jack Straw: I know that Conservative Members have suggested that earlier elections could have produced this or that result. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that we should make this change-or, rather, put the opportunity for change before the British people, for it is not we who are making the change-as a matter of principle. It will be for the British people, in whom I suggest Conservative Members have a bit of faith, to listen to the argument over a 20-month period, and to listen particularly intensely during the last six months of a campaign. They will be able to make their own judgments in the privacy of the ballot box. They will reach their own opinions.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Jack Straw: I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress first. I have already given way a great deal.
	I suggest that the case for making the change is to do with the fact that we have moved from a two-party arrangement in the House-which is what obtained, unusually in British politics, between 1945 and 1970-to the three or four-party system that has much more often been the default setting of British politics. The question of whether there should be a change is nothing new-as I shall make clear, it has been debated on a number of occasions-but of course some hon. Members will ask why we need to make the change now. The answer is that in the past 12 months, as everyone knows-it has affected hon. Members in all parts of the House in the same way-we have seen a crisis of confidence in our political system and our politicians on a scale that none of us has witnessed before in our political lifetime. Trust has been profoundly damaged. [Hon. Members: "That has nothing to do with it."] It has everything to do with it.
	Immediate action has already been taken to clear up the expenses system, with the passage of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and with the clauses in this Bill to strengthen the new regime already approved by the House. We will shortly debate the recommendations of the Wright Committee on improvements to the way in which the House operates. Those are important initiatives, which show that we mean to put our own house in order in due course, but all of us here must do all that we can to restore trust in politics, and it is axiomatic that part of that process must involve consideration of which electoral system can best serve the people of this country and asking them to make a decision. Our response is to put in place a credible alternative which would go with the grain of what the British people value in our system, and allow them to express their clear view in a referendum.
	Sensible constitutional change should enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of our institutions, not undermine them. I suggest, and I will suggest to the British people if these new clauses are passed, that adopting the alternative vote system would achieve that. The alternative vote system builds on the strengths of our current system: direct accountability for individual Members, and the chance for voters to select or eject Governments. I believe that it would help to rebuild the trust and connection between electors and their representatives that is vital to restoring politics.

Tom Harris: Does my right hon. Friend attribute the stainless reputation of Italian politicians to the fact that the Italians have proportional representation?

Jack Straw: I have never argued in favour of proportional representation-and this is not proportional representation-and I have certainly never argued in favour of the Italian system.

Peter Tapsell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: I will in a moment. I have already taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Tapsell: The Secretary of State would not answer the question that I asked then.

Jack Straw: I did answer it, and I will answer it again. The answer is that, even under an alternative vote system, if there are only two candidates there will be no need for eliminating ballots. But, as I pointed out, the system that the Conservative party uses is a system of eliminating ballots. It is not first past the post.

Peter Tapsell: rose-

Jack Straw: I have now answered the hon. Gentleman's question.

Peter Tapsell: rose-

Jack Straw: By allowing the public to express- [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. The Secretary of State's appetite for debating and responding to interjections is legendary, but we are reaching a stage at which it is perhaps disrupting progress, and I am anxious to make the debate as inclusive as it can possibly be. I simply suggest that Members on both sides of the Committee should bear that in mind if we are to make progress and allow other voices to be heard.

Jack Straw: Thank you, Sir Alan. I will make a little progress now, but I will take more interventions later.
	I suggest that, by allowing the public to express a range of preferences, the alternative vote would increase the electorate's stake in their representatives, encouraging candidates to appeal to the whole electorate. Under AV, MPs would, by definition, have to receive 50 per cent. plus one from those voting and exercising their preferences. That could only be good for the legitimacy of Members and for the House as a whole.

Graham Stringer: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: I will in a second.
	Between 1945 and 1970, the Labour and Conservative parties shared over 85 per cent. of the votes cast. For the three elections between 1951 and 1959 the share was over 90 per cent., and the share of the third party was less than 6 per cent. However, as I have said, that period was atypical of British politics in the 20th and 21st centuries. Every contest now involves at least three candidates; in Scotland and Northern Ireland there are at least four, and, given the involvement of newer parties, often more. It is telling that at the last election, in 2005, only about a third of MPs won 50 per cent. or more of the votes cast in their constituencies.
	It may be suggested that this is a sudden idea, but that is untrue. The proposals for the alternative vote have been debated in the House and the other place for exactly 100 years.

Graham Stringer: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: I will in a second.
	It was 100 years ago this year that a royal commission unanimously recommended the adoption of the alternative vote. However, the recommendation became caught up in the constitutional crisis when the unelected Conservative majority in the House of Lords decided to disrupt Lloyd George's excellent "People's Budget".
	It has been said that we should not spend a one-off £80 million at a time of economic crisis. However, the country faced a profound existential crisis in 1917 when the first world war was going badly. At that time the Government sensibly decided that they needed to look to the future, and recommended a change in the system through a Speaker's Conference-which, I remind the Committee, Winston Churchill supported as a Liberal. As a consequence of those proposals, the alternative vote was put before the House.  [Interruption.] A Conservative Member mentions the Speaker's Conference, but what it recommended was different from what the House decided, and, in the end, it is the House that decides. Again, however, thanks to the built-in Conservative majority in the other place, this House's decision to go for the alternative vote was overturned, and instead the other place went not for first past the post, but for a system of proportional representation, and as a result the Bill fell.

Graham Stringer: Can my right hon. Friend not see that there is a flaw in his argument when he compares national elections with the electoral system within parties, where we decide on our candidates and leaders in such a way as to choose the least unpopular, rather than the most popular? Under the alternative vote system in national elections, it is likely that there would have been even more Conservative MPs after the 1983 general election and more Labour MPs after 1997. How is that fair, and how is that going to raise confidence among the electorate?

Jack Straw: I would make two points in response to that. First, these so-called extrapolations cannot take into account how voter behaviour would change under a different system, but I profoundly believe it would do so-that must be the case. The late, excellent, noble Lord Alexander of Weedon made a good point in his dissenting note to the 1999 Jenkins report about what happened in '83 and '97. I have never believed that voters would react in the way that was proposed, however. Moreover, what we are debating now is not whether the House should decide on the alternative vote, but simply whether we give the British people an opportunity to have a debate about the matter.
	My second point is about my hon. Friend's statement that there is a difference between elections of party leaders and elections of MPs. I do not accept what he says on that. The reason why all major parties have an eliminating ballot system is so that the person who is elected leader has legitimacy and a broad consensus of support. I suggest, particularly to those of us who profoundly believe in single-Member constituencies, that that is of even more importance in constituencies than it is for party leaders.

William Cash: Given that the objective of a general election is to determine a Parliament and a Government, does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that merely to get a 50 per cent. majority for each individual constituency does not result in a party having 50 per cent. of the seats in Parliament, and therefore we do not get the 50 per cent. majority implicit in the principles he is putting forward on behalf of the idea of individual MPs for individual constituencies?

Jack Straw: I usually follow the hon. Gentleman's argument but disagree with him. On this occasion, I am afraid I do not follow him, so I do not know whether I agree with him or not.

Kevin Barron: I think that AV would be fairer. Did my right hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) say on the radio this morning and "Newsnight" last night that seats such as mine that have been represented by Members of the same political party for decades-that has been the case in my constituency since the first world war, not the second-are more likely to be involved in the expenses scandal? When I came to the House this morning, I checked on that, and I have to say that more than 30 per cent. of Liberal Democrat MPs have had to pay money back because of the Legg report. Has my right hon. Friend conducted any investigations into whether there is a causal link between seats such as mine and people claiming money they should not have?

Jack Straw: Without being tempted down that path, I say to my right hon. Friend that I, too, felt rather gypped when I heard the hon. Member for Eastleigh suggesting that, somehow, those of us who are Members for seats that the same party has represented for the past 60 years are less worthy than those who represent more marginal seats. There is a reason why my constituency has been Labour since 1945. It is not because it is a "safe seat"; it is because there have been two successive Members of Parliament, of which I have the privilege to be one, who have sought to place the interests of their constituents first and above all else. That is also true of Members of other parties, of course.

Michael Howard: rose-

Jack Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I will make some serious progress.

Michael Howard: I am most grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way. Since he has now mentioned his constituents and the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has mentioned the expenses scandal, can he tell us how many people who were gathered around his soap box in Blackburn on the last occasion that he was on it told him that the answer to the expenses scandal was the introduction of the alternative vote?

Jack Straw: I am holding a soap box session this Saturday in Blackburn town centre, and I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come along and ask me a question. The serious answer, however, is that very few constituents have articulated proposals for dealing with the problem of trust in politics-those proposals include the setting up of the parliamentary standards authority and the Wright Committee recommendations. People sense, however, that we need to make changes. They sense the need for greater legitimacy in our system. Above all, they want a greater and more immediate say on the system, and that is what the measure being discussed would provide.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Jack Straw: I have taken a lot of interventions, and I am now going to make some progress.
	I am sure that we will hear of Winston Churchill's dismissal of the alternative vote in the Third Reading debate on the Representation of the People (No.2) Bill in June 1931. That was the third attempt in 21 years to get a change in that regard, but each of them was thwarted not by this House, but by the Conservative majority in the unelected House of Lords. Churchill said that a decision under AV
	"is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates."-[ Official Report, 2 June 1931; Vol. 253, c. 106.]
	However, those who pray Churchill in aid need to be careful. First, as ever with Winston Churchill, he changed his mind more than once-and he supported AV in 1917. Secondly, his first preference was not for first past the post, but for proportional representation, and his "next best method" was "the second ballot", which is simply a longer, more expensive form of AV.
	Let me turn to a point raised by the hon. Members for Cambridge (David Howarth) and for Eastleigh. I do not dismiss the case for PR out of hand, and I know that it has some adherents on the Labour Benches. Where elections are to a body that has a representative, not an Executive, function, I have always accepted that the case for PR is much stronger. The truth is that every system has its advantages and disadvantages, but we are of the firm view that a majoritarian system is right for the Commons.
	Let me now deal with the specific question of why we propose a referendum. As I have said, this is a matter of trust. Over most of the past 13 years, I have been the Secretary of State with responsibility for coming to the House with various pieces of constitutional change. Some of them have been controversial at the beginning, but on every occasion I and the Government have sought to reach a consensus across the Floor of the House, as we did in respect of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the provisions on party funding in 2000 and 2009, and also in respect of devolution, when the proposals were put to a referendum. I believe it is essential that changes to our electoral system-big changes, such as to the number of MPs, which I shall come on to-must be the subject of some kind of cross-party endorsement or referendum, and cannot be seen as partisan tools in the hands of an individual party.

Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: No, I am going to make some progress.
	That is how we have approached these matters in the past. Between 1997 and 2005, we could have used our huge majorities as a battering ram to disable the Conservative Opposition, but we never did so, because of the care that we, and the Liberal Democrats, have for the way our constitution operates. I must also say that the Conservatives would be willing to take part in that approach. However, let us compare what we propose, which is to ask the British people whether they wish to change the electoral system, with the Conservative party's alternative to restore trust, which is for a 10 per cent. cut in the number of Members of Parliament, without testing the will of the people in a referendum or any effort being made-

Dominic Grieve: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: No, I am going to make progress. The hon. and learned Gentleman has a speech to make, too. The Conservatives will not make any effort to seek any kind of cross-party consensus.
	Cutting 65 to 80 seats by crudely equalising registered voters across constituencies would unjustifiably reduce the number of seats in urban areas when we already know, according to the Electoral Commission's independent estimate, that most of the 3 million people who are eligible to vote but who are not registered are to be found in our inner urban areas- [ Interruption. ] It certainly would be gerrymandering. It would disadvantage Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would hit every island community. Orkney and Shetland would be amalgamated with a large part of the highlands. The Isle of Wight would be amalgamated with a large part of Hampshire- [ Interruption. ] Oh yes, it would.
	It might assist the Committee if I set out the views of the Electoral Reform Society, which states:
	"Conservative proposals mean that most constituencies will pay less regard to what most voters think of as community and natural boundaries, and change more frequently, destabilising the link between MPs and constituents."
	It went on to say that the
	"United States"-
	the Conservatives have obviously picked this idea up from the United States-
	"has rigorous requirements for arithmetical equality of population in congressional districts, but the worst gerrymandering in the developed world. Equal sized constituencies cannot produce fair votes by themselves"-

Dominic Grieve: rose-

Jack Straw: I shall not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman has his own speech to make in a moment.

Dominic Grieve: Disgraceful.

Jack Straw: I have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman three times.
	The Conservative proposals are in stark contrast with the Government's proposals. We are seeking to legislate for a referendum to give the people a say. The Opposition's aim is to butcher scores of constituencies for sordid political ends, without recourse to any independent review or opportunity for public comment. As a friend of the Conservative party and somebody who has always been concerned about its health, I offer the following thought. They plan, if elected-a receding prospect-to make this change within 18 months and with no proper consultation. Once they have made the change, guess what will happen? The majority of Conservatives in government would not be fighting the Opposition; they would be fighting each other-

Dominic Grieve: That gives the lie to it.

Jack Straw: So, that gives the lie to what I have just said? What it tells us is that this policy is as well thought through as the poll tax was-a good idea at the time, written on the back-

Dominic Grieve: rose-

Jack Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman wants to ask about the poll tax, so I will give way.

Dominic Grieve: The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. He cannot, on the one hand, rightly highlight the fact that the pain of the change would be shared equally across both sides of the House and then, on the other hand, say that it has been put forward for party political advantage. May I gently point out to him that the United States has gerrymandering because the votes and the selection of the constituencies and their sizes are determined by the legislatures without intervention from any independent boundary commission? As this decision will be in the hands of the boundary commissioners, I hope that the Secretary of State will now withdraw that ludicrous allegation.

Jack Straw: I do not withdraw that allegation, because it happens to have the merit of being true. What is more, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the proposal would disproportionately hit urban areas, where there are fewer Conservative Members-although there are still some-and more Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, because of the under-representation on the electoral register of millions of voters in those areas. The hon. and learned Gentleman also fails to take account of the need for natural communities to be represented in the House.
	Another point makes the Conservative proposal completely bogus. There is a suggestion that the size of this House has somehow increased exponentially. That is not true. The size of this House has increased by 3 per cent.-21 Members-since 1950. The size of our constituencies has increased by 25 per cent. over that period. The work load from constituencies of Members of Parliament, even in this time that I have been in the House, has dramatically increased. The consequence of the Conservative proposals would be to gerrymander boundaries, detach Members of Parliament from their constituencies and, where Members of Parliament exist, add considerably to their work load. That can only mean that the level of service to constituents would be less good, at a time when we should be increasing it.
	Let me briefly run through the amendments and new clauses. Amendment 136 provides for a number of provisions in the Bill to come into force when it receives Royal Assent. New clause 88 makes provision for the date of the referendum and the detail of the question to be set by secondary legislation after consultation with the Electoral Commission, defines the alternative vote system that would be the subject of the referendum and defines that it will be a binary choice. New clause 89 defines the franchise, new clause 90 defines the referendum period, new clause 91 relates to the role of the Electoral Commission, new clause 92 provides for funds to be made available, new clause 93 provides a mechanism for settling accounts for expenditure, new clause 94 relates to challenges to the referendum result and new clauses 95 and 96 make minor amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Amendment 137 amends the long title of the Bill. Let me remind the House that the 2000 Act contains detailed regulation to ensure fair play, including fair money, for both sides of a referendum campaign. This is an important debate. Its subject is a fundamental plank of our democracy and it comes at a time when this House is held in dangerously low regard. The Government have tabled these new clauses after considerable study and consideration.
	The debate about AV has been going on for 100 years. The alternative vote takes on the considerable strengths of our system and, I suggest, builds on them. We propose a referendum, however, because we believe that it is not for us to make the final decision. It is important that the people should have that choice in a referendum. If the Conservative Opposition feel so strongly about the merits of first past the post, why do they not have the courage of their convictions? They should back the proposals and allow the people in their constituencies, as well as those in every other constituency across the country, to make that choice-a mature and balanced choice-after detailed debate some time before October 2011. That is what we propose and that is what I believe should be supported. I commend the new clauses to the House.

Dominic Grieve: I am truly sorry to see the Secretary of State being obliged to be associated with this guff.
	The best starting point would be for the Secretary of State to take a short absence from the Chamber to look at the excellent blog site run by his son, Will Straw, on which there has been extensive polling in left-of-centre areas of radicalism about these proposals. No more than 20 per cent., he has concluded, support the alternative vote proposed by the Government and 29 per cent. want no referendum at all. Perhaps we should not be surprised to learn, particularly from a left-of-centre blog, that the vast majority of the remainder want such disparate things that it is impossible to assess what they desire. I think that the Secretary of State would have done rather well to have considered that blog first.
	The Government have tabled new clause 88 at this late stage of the proceedings-indeed, at this late stage of the life of new Labour-following the Prime Minister's belated conversion to the cause of electoral reform, which he has so successfully and personally obstructed for more than a decade. For the benefit of hon. Members on the Benches to my left, I think that it is worth recapping the history of new Labour's conversion to the cause of electoral reform.
	In 1990, Labour set up the Plant commission, which recommended something that was basically the alternative vote. What was the view of the Prime Minister? He said that it was "defeatism" and attacked
	"those who say Labour cannot win and who seek refuge from Labour's mission ahead as a crusade for change in the technicalities of electoral manoeuvring and horse-trading".
	How the mighty are fallen.
	In 1997, the Government were elected on a clear manifesto promise of a referendum on electoral reform. We all know that it was a device-we know what happens when the Prime Minister promises a referendum. The Government got Lord Jenkins to devise an alternative voting system. Let us remember what Lord Jenkins thought of AV, which the Liberal Democrats will support, I assume, if they cannot get their amendment through. He said that it is "even less proportional" than the first-past-the-post system, "disturbingly unpredictable", and "unfair" to the Conservative party-not that that has ever affected Liberal Democrat and Labour thinking very much. He proposed the proportional system, AV-plus, which he thought fairer. What happened to the promise of a referendum? At that point, the Government's commitment to it completely faded away.

Edward Leigh: May we purse the point that the Justice Secretary made about whether voters would have changed their behaviour in 1983 so that there would not have been an even more disproportionate result? If my hon. and learned Friend's constituents in Beaconsfield had been voting under AV, how could they have worked out how to vote to avoid having a bigger Conservative majority in 1983 or a bigger Labour majority in 1997? I do not quite understand what the Justice Secretary is going on about.

Dominic Grieve: I am extremely uncertain what the Justice Secretary is going on about. My view, particularly in light of his remarks about the state into which the House has fallen, is that the electorate want the opportunity to express their views, and that if they happen to have a very adverse view of a Member of Parliament, they will want that Member to be removed. The last thing that they want is a situation in which the person against whom they have an adverse view comes second, but then magically comes first when the alternative votes are transferred.

John Gummer: Does my hon. and learned Friend remember that the assessment of what would have happened in 1983 and 1997 was not a party political assessment, but a cold, academic assessment? It said that the results in both cases would have been much less proportionate than what happened under the first-past-the-post system and would have meant substantial over-representation.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend and I apologise if I did not do justice to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made when I replied to his intervention. I accept entirely that the research that has been carried out on this matter shows clearly, as I have illustrated in terms of the electorate's will, that the system skews the results of elections in a way that is manifestly unfair.

David Howarth: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way because he has just given away my party's whole case, which is that proportionality and fairness are the same thing. If he does not believe that, why does he care about the point that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made?

Dominic Grieve: I believe in the first-past-the-post system and that the Secretary of State, in terms of his adherence to the alternative vote, does too. That is what distinguishes my party from the Liberal Democrats, who have been clamouring for proportional representation for a long time because that is the only way in which they might wield any influence.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dominic Grieve: Let me make some progress. I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I believe that the first-past-the-post system delivers clear, clean results. That is why my party has consistently adhered to that system, whether it has been to the party's advantage or disadavantage to do so. That is more than can be said for the Government, as is clear from the inconsistencies in the way in which they are operating.

Robert Syms: I remember the last time that the Justice Secretary came before the House to change an electoral system. That was some years ago, when we changed to the list system for European elections. I remember clearly the argument about changing behaviour, which was that turnout would go up when we got rid of the first-past-the-post system. In fact, the opposite happened, so changed behaviour can be bad rather than good.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend is quite right. The list system has effectively destroyed European elections for all practical purposes in the minds of the electorate, and is one of the great disasters that we have visited upon the country. That is reflected in low turnouts and the contempt that people feel about what is now a sort of Buggins' turn system that is dictated by the political parties.

Christopher Huhne: While the hon. and learned Gentleman is extolling the virtues of the first-past-the-post system, will he answer the question that the Justice Secretary refused to answer? How low would the Government's share of the vote have to be for him to regard the system as illegitimate? Would it have to be lower than 35 per cent., which is what the Government had?

Dominic Grieve: It seems to me that it is a legitimate system whatever the percentage, because the electorate are asked a perfectly straightforward question-who do they wish to represent them? It gives the majority view on a single person. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot see that. The system is straightforward, simple and requires people to make sensible choices about who is likely to be elected and who they might therefore wish to support. For those reasons, I think that the system is extremely clear and commands widespread support.
	In my constituency-I make this point also in the context of the Liberal Democrats-I get very few representations about changing the electoral system. I suspect that the same is true for many hon. Members. The more that people study proportional representation systems, including purist systems such as that in Israel, the more they must conclude that such systems saddle countries with impossible legislatures, that no proper governance can be carried out under them and that they bring inertia. For those reasons, PR does not commend itself to me.

Andrew Pelling: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: In a moment. Let me make a tiny bit more progress.
	I was just pointing out that when the first great reform went into the sands, it was the leader of the Liberal Democrats who pointed out that it was the then Chancellor, the current Prime Minister, who blocked it. The current Home Secretary has said that Labour
	"lost the will to carry it through...when narrow party political advantage dominated our internal debate in the Labour Party."
	I fear that the Justice Secretary is moving towards that position again, because the only conclusion that one can reach from the incoherent proposals before us is that they are seen to have a narrow party political advantage for the Government. Many Government Back Benchers, however, can see that the proposals are seriously flawed.

Martin Linton: Surely, if there was a bias in the elections that have been mentioned, it was not in the voting system but in the second preferences of Liberal Democrat voters. The answer to that for the hon. and learned Gentleman must be to broaden his party's appeal and not to deny voters a choice.

Hon. Members: Voters have a choice.

Dominic Grieve: I agree that voters have a choice. Frankly, I am singularly unconcerned about the Liberal Democrats' preferences or tendencies, or about where they will go for a second vote. I am by no means persuaded that the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) is right. The evidence from my constituency is that it is most improbable that Liberal Democrat voters would exercise a second preference vote in favour of a Labour candidate, but things might be different in other places.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

Dominic Grieve: In a moment.
	When the Prime Minister took office in 2007, he promised to publish a review. In 2005, Labour announced that it was conducting a review, and in 2007 he said that he was going to publish it. This is a key issue because he did not make any attempt to hide the fact that the report had already been written. In fact, it was effectively locked in the Justice Secretary's bottom drawer. There was a problem with the 2005 review because even though its terms of reference were to look at the voting systems that were used, someone, in conducting the review for the Labour party, seemed to have asked the team to look at the alternative vote as well. The conclusion that the review came to was that the AV was capable of producing even more disproportionate outcomes nationally than the first-past-the-post system.

John Redwood: What is fair about a system that means that those who vote for the first or second-most popular parties only get to vote once whereas those who vote for the third or fourth-most popular parties get to vote twice? Why should they get to vote twice if the rest of us are not able to?

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I was not going to quote Churchill, but it seems to me that that is a problem that he correctly identified in 1931-the disproportionate weighting that the system would give to the views of those who are idiotic or ridiculous.

Jeremy Browne: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: In a moment.

Michael Wills: On that point, given what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, what is his position on the Conservative party's system for electing its leaders?

Dominic Grieve: I thought that we had sorted this out in interventions on the Secretary of State. We are talking there about electing a single person to an office, not about electing a Parliament. In any event, it is not an alternative vote system, as only two people go to the electorate. The electorate do not have a choice between more than two candidates in the first place.

Christopher Huhne: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: In a moment. [Hon. Members: "Frit!"] I am sure that there is a desire to interrupt an account of what happened in 2007, because it highlights the full extent to which the Government cut the ground from under their own arguments.
	In January 2008, the Secretary of State published his review, from which the section on the alternative vote system had mysteriously and conveniently disappeared. However, anyone bothered to read the detail would see that the review provides a snapshot of what would have happened at the 2005 general election, had it been run under a variety of voting systems. Helpfully for the Prime Minister, on page 130 it also provides a useful ready reckoner. It considers in depth the d'Hondt method, the least-squares proportionality system and Arrow's paradox, but what was plumped for was the only system that would have given Labour even more seats than first-past-the-post at the 2005 election. I might add that the same system was the only one that would have given the Conservative party fewer seats than in 2005-even though, in England, we gained a majority of the votes cast.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman address the anomalies north of the border, where there are four different voting systems? Is it Tory policy to have only one there-the first-past-the-post system?

Dominic Grieve: From the many debates that we have had on Scotland, the hon. Gentleman knows that we are respecters of the devolution settlement. I am happy to debate reform of the first-past-the-post system there, and indeed the Secretary of State has tried to debate that too, but our respect for devolution means that, notwithstanding our support for reform, we would not impose a new system. That is something that must be determined by the Scottish Government and electorate.
	However, I do share the view of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe) in one respect. When I visit Scotland, the people to whom I speak are not, on the whole, Conservative party supporters. My experience is that there seems to be a great deal of dissatisfaction with the electoral system that has been foisted on the Scottish electorate, who appear to be deeply unhappy with it. For those reasons, I believe that the Scottish system is something that the House ought to heed, as it does not offer a good reason why we should go down the same road.

Christopher Huhne: On that point, will the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he regards the Conservative party's Scottish representation in Westminster as fair?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, it is fair. I have no difficulty with the first-past-the-post system for Westminster elections, as I have made clear. The fact that my party in Scotland has very poor representation in Scotland is a challenge that we must do something about. If we cannot, we will continue to have very poor levels of representation-simple as that.

Andrew Pelling: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Bob Spink: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: No.

Michael Wills: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman moves on, he has made great play of the review of voting systems. I have the document here-

Dominic Grieve: I do not.

Michael Wills: Then he should not quote from documents with which he is not familiar. In the introduction to the scenario to which he has just referred it states:
	"A large number of assumptions have to be made".
	That is precisely the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that we cannot be so arrogant as to presume how voters will vote under a new system that is different from what has been in place in the past?

Dominic Grieve: I understood the Secretary of State to say that he assumed that people would vote differently. That is another piling-on of assumptions, and I do not think that this House should legislate on the basis of such assumptions. All I can do is point out what the report says, including the fact that it makes it clear that the alternative vote system would have delivered more seats than the first-past-the-post system for Labour in 2005, even though it only gained 36 per cent. of the popular vote. That seems to me to be a very poor starting-point for change in that direction.

John Gummer: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very difficult to decide how people would have voted in any past election? However, is it not sensible to try to take the best estimate of that, rather than one that comes out of the air? The document makes it clear that, of all possible systems, the alternative vote system would have been more unfair than first past the post on every occasion.

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. I presume that the Minister of State was speaking on behalf of the Government, so it is astonishing that he should rise to his feet and say-suddenly and almost ex improviso-that the Committee should not follow that series of assumptions. We have to make a judgment, on the basis of what the evidence suggests.

John Hayes: Does my hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Secretary of State once understood that himself? The unfairness described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has to do with proportionality. When the previous Labour Prime Minister flirted with these matters, the Secretary of State said that first past the post, and similar systems, give
	"power to the largest plurality and so help secure a system where the proportionality, not between votes and seats, but between votes and power, may be the greater."-[ Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 804.]
	I wonder why he changed his mind about that.

Dominic Grieve: I have a soft spot for the Secretary of State, and I have to tell my hon. Friend that I wonder whether he really has changed his mind. The way that the new clause has been introduced, the length of time that it took to germinate, the internal debates that clearly took place at parliamentary Labour party meetings and the sounds that one could hear coming out of the Room where they took place-all of that rather strongly suggests that the Secretary of State was fighting a rearguard action against a Prime Minister who was both losing the plot and taking leave of his political senses in a desperate bid to stay in office.

Patrick Cormack: Is not the greatest absurdity of all the fact that the Secretary of State knows full well that there is no chance of this Bill becoming law? There is no time for Parliament to pass the legislation before the general election, so are we not merely going through a ridiculous charade?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is something somewhat unreal about this, and I shall return in a moment to considering why the Government have acted as they have.

John Redwood: Labour and Liberal Democrat representatives seem keen to say that we use the alternative vote system for our internal party elections, but we do not. The system used for our leadership election is the progressive rounds model, under which one candidate drops out at each stage, with everyone being given a vote on the remaining candidates. That could not conceivably be adopted for general elections, as having six or seven candidates at the start would mean that the election would take about three months. The electorate would get bored, and the costs would be massive.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, but this is not the first time that we have had surreal proposals from Labour Members.
	I want to return to what has happened recently. Last week, after 13 years in power, only weeks away from a general election and with the Secretary of State's party behind in the polls, the Prime Minister decides that he is going to break yet another promise. Whereas he previously said that he would put a commitment to a referendum on AV to the people at a general election, and notwithstanding his party's internal debates, he is now going to introduce the system in this Bill.
	It is very difficult to take seriously a person who is dithering around for what is clearly nothing more than the shortest-term possible political advantage. Why did the Justice Secretary go along with this? Did the Welsh Secretary twist his arm? Did the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pull rank on him? I find it incomprehensible why somebody with the common sense of the Secretary of State would decide to go down that road, and I feel truly sorry for him.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: No, I really must make progress.
	The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendment (d) to give the public a choice on the proportional representation system that the Liberal Democrats have long and consistently campaigned for. As I said a moment ago, that system would lead to weak, unstable government, to minority parties holding the balance of power on a tiny fraction of the vote, and to extensive parliamentary representation for madmen and extremists. The Liberal Democrats have supported PR for a very long time, but I long ago realised that in matters of rationality the Liberal Democrats do not surface very much.
	This is the issue: amendment (d) will be put to the vote later and defeated. I forgive myself for turning to a role of prophecy, but I think that I can say with some certainty that the amendment is going absolutely nowhere. What then are those hon. Gentlemen from the Liberal Democrats going to do? How on earth are they going to justify voting for a system that is less proportionate than first past the post? I heard the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), their Home Affairs spokesman, say earlier today that they would support the alternative vote system in the referendum because it represented "baby steps" towards proportional representation. It is no wonder the Prime Minister thinks that the Liberal Democrats were born yesterday.
	Time after time, the Liberal Democrats are succoured by broken promises of electoral reform, but there may be another reason for their support. Again, if we turn to the ready-reckoner in the Ministry's review, which the Minister has, we find that, although the alternative vote system is less proportionate overall, it would significantly benefit just one other political party apart from Labour. [Hon. Members: "Who?"] It would benefit-surprisingly-the Liberal Democrats, giving them more seats. So they must think that we were born yesterday if they think that we are going to support such a proposal.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. and learned Gentleman has spent his entire speech arguing for the merits of a system that is disproportionate and gives one party government, and arguing against AV because it is more disproportionate than first past the post. Should he not have spent more time preparing his speech?

Dominic Grieve: There is no perfect system, although I am bound to say- [ Interruption. ] No, there is not: there is no perfect system, and I defy the Liberal Democrats to argue that there is. I do not put it past them to try to run such an argument, which I look forward to, but I am singularly unconvinced by it. First past the post delivers clarity; it is well established in this country; and it enables electorates to get rid of Members whom they do not want and express a clear choice. The alternative vote system, with which the Liberal Democrats are being seduced, skews the result towards far greater unfairness than anything that first past the post could ever achieve.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the existing system allows people to get rid of MPs whom they do not like, but they can do so only if they are prepared to change their party allegiance. Many people are not prepared to do so, and only the Irish system-the single transferable vote system-allows people to choose the party and the person. Indeed, one third of people who lose their seats in the Irish system lose it to members of their own party. That is discipline; that would get rid of safe seats; and that would ensure that voters' choice really did count.

Dominic Grieve: Voters can make up their own mind, and I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Voters are offered a clear series of choices to make, including whether they wish to vote tactically-something that Liberal Democrats specialise in. On the whole, that is not a major problem and, indeed, they benefit from tactical voting, as they readily admit. Their by-election literature is all about tactical voting. How often have I seen "Only the Liberal Democrats can win here" on election literature. The hon. Gentleman's argument therefore has no basis whatever.

Jack Straw: The new clauses before the Committee would not impose the alternative vote system on the British people, but give them a choice. As far as I can tell, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not used one word of his speech to oppose those clauses, so, if he is so confident of his opinions, why is he scared of putting them to the British people?

Dominic Grieve: I refer the Secretary of State to his son's blog.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, I do. I commend it to the right hon. Gentleman, because it highlights the fact that the Government have not chosen to give the electorate any viable choice in this bogus referendum. The only choice is between an established system and a system that is so manifestly flawed-except for the possible short-term advantage that it delivers-that it is not worthy of consideration. I have some sympathy with the Liberal Democrats, because, if the Government wanted to offer a constitutional convention-style approach to the electorate, with a multiplicity of choices, the Secretary of State's argument might have some force. At the moment, however, it has none, because what is being offered is a short-term gimmick.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Dominic Grieve: No.
	May I commend to the Secretary of State the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris)? On his blog of 19 November, he said,
	"you know the best way of electing a Labour government? Not through messy, sordid little deals with the minor parties, but by winning more votes than the Tories. That's how they stayed in power for most of the last century-by beating us in elections; by offering the electorate policies that were more popular than ours."
	Clearly, the Prime Minister has given up on that strategy, but we should not be too surprised. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that
	"we simply reinforce the notion...that we have nothing to offer the voters but electoral calculations."

Michael Wills: The hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted at great length from the review of voting systems, but on the spreadsheet that he has cited so often the review says that
	"the ERS analysis assumed that in the 2005 election relatively few voters who principally favoured another party would have put them"-
	the Conservative party-
	"as second choice."
	Why does he think that is?

Dominic Grieve: I have not the slightest idea. The Minister is now getting bogged down- [ Interruption. ] But he is. He wishes to embrace that document, so why have the Government come to the House to say that there should be a referendum on moving from the first-past-the-post system only to an alternative vote system? The Minister cannot escape that issue, and it highlights the way in which the Government have conducted the whole debate. That is why I shall ask my colleagues, and, indeed, every Member who wants any sensible debate about electoral reform, to reject the proposals before us.

David Wilshire: On my hon. and learned Friend's point about why only one alternative voting system would be offered, does he not think that if AV were such a good idea the Government would come forward with a list of opportunities and, using AV, tell the electorate to put them in some kind of order?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. The evidence of the Government's motivation is overwhelming, and it comes from their own supporters. Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, a founder member of Charter 88, said:
	"It smacks of the usual scheming and calculation-just what political reform should be designed to end."
	Labour's former Mayor of London said:
	"Many people like myself who have long fought for a truly representative voting system will be left with no alternative but to support first-past-the-post because the AV alternative is even worse...Those voters who have backed one of the two strongest candidates in a constituency get no further say in the process, whereas those who have voted for minor parties and crank candidates then get a second vote to determine the outcome between the two leading parties."
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) says:
	"First past the post is the only sensible system"-[ Official Report, 16 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 156.]
	while the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) says that
	"the alternative vote system...can be even more disproportionate in its effects than the first-past-the-post system"-[ Official Report, 16 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 155.]
	As I said at the beginning, this proposal is guff. As was rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), the straightforward point is that the Government know very well that this debate is going nowhere. We are now on the sixth day of the Committee stage of a major constitutional Bill. The House is about to break for 10 days. There will have to be Report and Third Reading, and there is not the slightest prospect of this legislation's reaching the House of Lords before the very end of the month or early March for Second Reading. On all the evidence, this House will finally have died into Dissolution by the end of March or early April.
	All the posturing that the Government have fed us this evening, all their insistence on the importance of party loyalty from their own Back Benchers-many of whose views I respect and many of whom are clearly unhappy with the proposals-are for the shortest-term political advantage. With spin, a bit of media management and some smoke and mirrors, the Government try to make out that this is something new in new Labour. In fact, as far as I can see, it is the dying jerks of a Government who have run out of ideas. That makes it all a bit miserable, but the fact that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to sign up makes it a complete charade. We will oppose the proposals.

Frank Field: I wish to move the amendments that stand in my name on the amendment paper, but I also want to pick up the theme-

The Chairman: Order. This is not the moment to move amendments; we have to dispose of new clause 88 first. The right hon. Gentleman can, of course, speak to the new clauses and amendments in this group.

Frank Field: After that happy start, I rise again to speak to new clause 88; in passing, I shall obviously want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name on the amendment paper.
	I want to pick up the theme on which the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ended and which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) noted earlier. I hope that whoever is in the control box allowing what we say today to go out on the network has already pulled the plug in that it must be worrying for our constituents to watch us seriously debating a measure that we know will not affect legislation, the election result or whether we have a referendum.
	In tabling my amendments, which I cannot yet move, Sir Alan, I hoped to turn this debate into a general discussion of parliamentary reform. One theme unites many of us on both sides of the House-the uncomfortable fact that a large number of us are returned to the House with only minority support. What we do about that is the beginning of the debate, not the end of it.
	What worries me about the proposals that we are debating is that it is not difficult to imagine some of our colleagues initially being clear winners against three or four other candidates, but, through a process of elimination, losing their seats because the votes eventually go to the runner-up. There is a terrible illogicality in having a system in which a candidate can have a clear lead in the first-preference votes, but in which the second or third-preference votes become equal to the first-preference votes in further stages of the counting. Clearly, those other votes are not equal to the first-preference votes; if they had been, people would have voted differently in the first place.

Christopher Huhne: rose-

John Hayes: rose-

Frank Field: I give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).

John Hayes: The point that the right hon. Gentleman has made is disturbing enough when it involves the extra power that would be gained by those whom we deride on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is chilling, however, when one considers that it would also give extra power to those whom we detest in small, extreme parties that I shall not honour by naming.

Frank Field: I totally agree, but I do not want to go down that particular route; I want to try to move on the debate a little.
	Should the plug in the control box not have been pulled and should our constituents be watching this debate, they will think how old-fashioned it is that the only way in which we are talking about election is in respect of the old parliamentary system. There has been a big debate in the country about how we select candidates. Some people have an objection to safe seats; the answer, surely, is to consider seriously-not necessarily embrace-paying some attention to the mechanisms by which we select candidates.
	My own seat of Birkenhead is quite safe-it was at the last election, at least. The real fight is about who will be the Labour candidate. I would welcome our having an open primary, in which there was a real contest for the Labour candidature; everybody would know that the person who won that would also win the seat. The quid pro quo would probably be that we would move back to seeing uncontested returns in "safe seats" where open primaries were held.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Frank Field: I give way to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).

Eleanor Laing: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, the Conservative party has held several open primaries to select candidates. They have been very successful and produced excellent candidates, who will be excellent MPs.

Frank Field: We hope that they will be excellent candidates and MPs. Having been selected in that way, they will certainly have a different authority from that of the rest of us. That is why I wish that we had embraced that system. I wrote to the Labour party campaign, asking whether it was going to have an open primary. I was told that it would love to, but that it would cost £50,000. I asked whether it was possible to find that money, but I was told that the campaign was in the business not of raising money, but of issuing press releases. That did not take us much further.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Frank Field: I give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).

Nicholas Soames: I support what the right hon. Gentleman has said about open primaries. Does he agree that, particularly at a time when participation in politics and political life is at an all-time low, anything that brings more people into the political process is devoutly to be welcomed?

Frank Field: It is. One of the constraints on our current debate has been our use of an old-fashioned set of spectacles, always looking at engagement as being only one-way, rather than looking at where the voters might be. The selection of candidates, as the hon. Gentleman has affirmed, is one key way of addressing that.

Mark Durkan: My right hon. Friend has already accepted the dangers of the costs of an open-primary system. Does he not also accept that, in logic, a primary system is essentially a process of electoral elimination, whereby weaker candidates fall away and those who support them end up helping to decide who finally wins? That very logic has been criticised in the alternative vote system. Surely the real issue is about how we get to a point at which every Member can truly say that they have a measure of mandate from a majority of their constituents. That gives us the alternative vote.

Frank Field: I am grateful for that, but I shall not go down that route; the Chairman might suggest that I should be speaking to the main new clause and not that issue.
	If what used to be called safe seats adopted a method of open primaries that were followed by uncontested results at the general election, the overall cost to the electoral system might not be that much greater. In other words, we would be using some of the money currently used in a general election to extend- [Interruption.] It is very good, is it not, that we now see where the Liberal Democrats stand on this issue? They are laughing at the idea of people trying to grapple with how we make it easier for our electorates to make their views sovereign in the process rather than ours.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend has obviously thought very deeply about we can address the disillusion with politics. However, is not this a particularly difficult time to go to the electorate and say that we want more money for the internal political process? Even in a seat like Birkenhead, if a Labour candidate is selected by an open primary, we cannot guarantee that there will not be a succeeding election and therefore an extra call on money from the public purse.

Frank Field: I agree with that. However, given my earlier suggestion that we should use this debate not seriously to undertake a major constitutional measure but to open up how we make our system more representative, no cost would be involved at this stage.

Geraldine Smith: I think that there are dangers with open primaries. Supporters of the Opposition parties may turn up and vote for the weakest candidate, or there may be a candidate with a particular interest-for example, a pro-life candidate-who floods the place with their supporters. This could end up being very undemocratic.

Frank Field: rose-

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for bringing new angles to our debates, but I think that this one might be stretching outside this group of amendments and new clauses, which, heaven knows, raises wide enough issues.

Frank Field: I hope, Sir Alan, that you will nevertheless allow me to conclude this part of my speech. During the open primary in Totnes, the Liberal Democrats set out to try to get the person they considered to be the weakest candidate elected, and thanks to their campaign the weakest candidate came bottom of the poll. We must not underestimate the common sense of our voters.

Bob Spink: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Field: No, I am going to make a small amount of progress, because you, Sir Alan, were kind enough to say that I could mention, at least in passing, the amendments that I have tabled.
	The amendments try to address the central weakness of the proposal that Government wish us to carry tonight-that a system of voting whereby second, third and fourth preference votes in constituencies where there is no majority winner then become, in a progressive movement, first preference votes. I do not believe that one can support that system.

Martin Linton: I know that my right hon. Friend has 65 per cent. of the first preference votes in Birkenhead, and I compliment him on that. Does he recognise that there are already millions of voters in hundreds of constituencies who know that their first preference does not have a chance and therefore vote for their second preference? We already live in a system where millions of people use the alternative vote, but they have to guess who the top two are going to be. Does he recognise that in the majority of constituencies the situation that he has described does not obtain, and that we need a solution to tactical voting, which is the alternative vote system?

Frank Field: If that is my hon. Friend's thinking, I hope that I will persuade him of the merits of my amendment. I do not want anyone to think that I am not concerned about the fact that votes are not equal between constituencies. If we go back in history, one of the demands-it was not just a radical plea of the Chartists, but one that was picked up on the other side-was to have single votes and equal votes. It is clearly very different if we look at the numbers by which Labour Members and Conservative Members are elected. Unfairest of all is how many votes the Liberal Democrats have to receive to get a single Member of Parliament.
	In my amendment, I propose the French system, whereby people have a vote whereby they are free to nominate any number of candidates that they wish, and they have a first preference vote. In constituencies where the candidate gets 50 per cent. plus one, they are declared elected. In all the other constituencies where a majority of the voters who turn out have not elected a member, during the following week the top two candidates are put back on to the ballot paper. In those circumstances, there is no need to guess, because everybody has first preference votes again. It is true, of course, that that system might be more expensive, but given what we spend money on now, might not the electorate prefer it? Interestingly, it is consistently the case in France that turnout on the second day of polling is significantly higher than on the first day.

Richard Burden: I am following my right hon. Friend's remarks with care. I wonder whether he has studied some of the analysis by the Electoral Reform Society. When it conducted a survey of different sorts of preferential voting systems a couple of years ago and looked at the French experience, particularly in the presidential election, it found that there was precisely the kind of tactical voting that my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) has mentioned. In particular, supporters of Chirac lent their votes to Le Pen to ensure that the run-off was between Le Pen and Chirac. That was a rather strange situation that did not really represent what was going on elsewhere. There is evidence of similar things happening in the presidential elections in Cyprus. Why does my right hon. Friend think that that would not happen here?

Frank Field: I am not putting this proposal forward as the silver bullet to solve all the problems. I welcome the fact that the Government, even late in the day, are opening up the whole debate on parliamentary reform. It is crucial that we constantly strive to improve the form of representation that we have in this country. I do not think for one moment that it would guarantee that we did not get such results, although such voting is dominant mainly in elections of the French Parliament, not the French President. Given those circumstances, I hope that we will look seriously not only at the one option that is being put forward today but at a series of alternatives in the form of a debate rather than moving to a resolution this evening.

Bob Spink: rose-

David Drew: rose-

Frank Field: As the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) has been jumping up a lot, I will give way to him and then to my hon. Friend.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. If he presses his amendment with the three alternatives to the vote, I will vote with him. On the AV system, does he accept that voters will not easily switch their allegiance between the main political parties, so the real political advantage will go to independents? Does he think that that might be a good thing, and that people might want to have more independents in this House in order to break the grip of the Whips from the main political parties?

Frank Field: It is always good to have a disinterested contribution made here.

David Drew: Much as I have difficulty with this proposal, because it is based on the French system, does my right hon. Friend agree that we would need to take the whole package? French national politicians also have local representative roles, and I have always felt that one of the weaknesses of the UK system is that we have to throw away our local power base to get elected as an MP. That is a weakness, is it not?

Frank Field: I will not go too far down that path, except to say that I have been in the House for 30 years, and it is interesting how the role of an MP has changed. Although we may not formally have the role that my hon. Friend has mentioned, my role as Back-Bench Member of Parliament representing a moderately safe seat-as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) was kind enough to point out-has changed out of all recognition in those 30 years. We do not have formal clout, and we are not elected to positions, but I am involved at a local level to a degree that would have been unimaginable when I first came into the House.

David Winnick: That is true of all of us.

Frank Field: Indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying so.
	I want to bring my remarks to conclusion, if I may. I welcome the Government's opening up this debate. It is not for us to put our sticky fingers into the soul of the Justice Secretary to try to work out what his motives are; we are all accountable for our own motives. In any event, good will come from our having a debate about how we can make this place more representative.
	I do not believe for a moment that this is a serious legislative contribution, because even if we complete it in time a deal will be done between the parties in the other place so that it does not see the light of day, and certainly so that it does not come back to us before the election. What we ought to take from today's debate is the extraordinary enthusiasm for the matter. In which other debates do we get such a number of Members in the Chamber, even at Committee stage? We are interested in this issue, and I say to the Justice Secretary that today is the start of it, but sadly not the conclusion.

David Howarth: I am sorry that I do not agree with either of the points that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made. That is unusual for me, because usually I agree with his points. The first was that under preferential voting systems, people effectively have more than one vote. That is not the case, because as the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) pointed out, they have one vote but are effectively asked what they would do with it if their first-preference candidate were not standing. That is called tactical voting, which happens all over the country in every general election, but in a preferential voting system it is done more formally and rationally, and people do not have to guess.
	The right hon. Gentleman's second point was in favour of the French system. I am sorry that I cannot follow him on that either, even though, unlike the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I am generally a great admirer of all things French. The electoral system in France has had an unfortunate effect not just on its politics but on its culture and way of life, because it has split the whole country into two large camps of left and right. France suffers constantly from that, and we should not go down that route. It would have the effect-perhaps many Members would welcome this-of taking us back to a bipolar system that is very difficult to break into. It is very difficult for new views to come through in such a system.
	It seemed to me that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) had only one argument, which defeated his own case. It was that he was against AV because it could be less proportional than first past the post, which is true. If he accepts that argument, he should therefore accept that as the single transferrable vote system, for example, is more proportional than first past the post, it is better and fairer according to his own argument. The Conservative case therefore seems self-contradictory.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that many of us believe that despite its disproportionate drawbacks, the advantages of the first-past-the-post system are so great that it is better than any proportional system? It is perfectly possible to argue that proportion is the only reason why one might want a change, and that this is the one disproportionate way of changing the system. It is therefore utterly barmy. To have a choice between first past the post and some sensible, proportional system, so that people could make a reasonable decision as to whether the advantages of one system outweighed its disadvantages, would be perfectly reasonable. However, to choose between one disproportionate-

The Chairman: Order. I know that there are complex arguments to be put in Committee, but I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is an extraordinarily long intervention and may deprive himself and others of the time that they will need later.

David Howarth: I am trying to remember the start of the intervention. It seems to me that one cannot argue that first past the post balances the disadvantages of disproportionality and the advantages of decisiveness in such a well calibrated way that any movement either way is obviously wrong. That does not make any sense, especially as everyone admits that we cannot tell precisely the degree to which AV would make a difference. We cannot answer that question, because preferential voting is like tactical voting but carried on in a different, more organised way. If tactical voting is unwound and people start to vote for their first preference, they will be voting in a way that they do not now. That is why it is perfectly reasonable to say that we do not know what the effect of the AV system would be.

Lynne Jones: Those of us who feel that we ought to move to a more proportional system cannot support the Liberal Democrat proposal, because it would break the link between the Member and the constituency. I would find it absolutely onerous to be a Member of Parliament representing the whole of Birmingham, for example, along with other Members. Why are the Liberal Democrats not supporting the proposal put forward by the royal commission, which is well thought out? It would move towards proportionality but by and large keep the link between even the additional Members and their constituents.

David Howarth: There are two points to consider in the hon. Lady's question. The first is whether the single transferrable vote would break the constituency link, which it would not. It would just mean that there were more Members per constituency. It would break the one Member, one constituency link. For 17 years I was a local councillor and there were three members in my ward, but I did not feel that that meant I represented the people in my ward less. In fact, when a member of another party represented the ward for a few years, it increased competition between the parties in the ward and made us all better representatives.
	The hon. Lady's second point was about the Jenkins commission's proposal, which was a political compromise but not one that we have to stay with for ever. It has a great number of disadvantages. First, it would set up two entirely different sorts of Member-the constituency Member and the list Member. There would be an overlap of responsibility between the two, but they would have very different mandates, which would lead to difficulties. Secondly, because the county seats would be so small-the lists would not be national; they would relate to very small regions by the standards of most regional list systems-the proposal would create the most extraordinary conflict of interest between AV-elected Members and county list Members. It would be in the interests of a list Member if his or her party colleagues lost in the constituency seat, which does not seem particularly sensible from the point of view of political parties or coherent government.

Mark Lazarowicz: The situation that the hon. Gentleman describes applies under the additional Member system in both Scotland and Wales, and the most reasonable commentators do not see any difficulty with that system. If it works well in Scotland and Wales, why cannot it operate at UK level for this Parliament?

David Howarth: I concede that it is a better system than first past the post, but a lot of the problems are about how big or small the electoral regions are. The larger they are, the less problem there is with the overlap between the jobs of the two sorts of Member, and the less it is in the interests of list Members that people on their own side are defeated in the constituency elections.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept a point that I have addressed to him and the Secretary of State, that advocating proportional representation is an attempt to obtain more seats? In a way one can understand the Liberal Democrats taking that view-there is a sort of cynicism there, but it is an understandable one. Does he also accept that in the heady days long ago when Lloyd George had a big majority, he said that proportional representation was
	"a device for defeating democracy...bringing faddists of all kinds into Parliament and...disintegrating parties"?
	Then in 1931, Lloyd George changed his position, and in an electoral reform Bill proposed the alternative vote. Does the hon. Gentleman not see a little cynicism in all this?

David Howarth: It comes as no great surprise that my great leader Mr. Lloyd George was accused of cynicism on occasions, but nevertheless there is equal cynicism in the Conservative party, which argues for first past the post solely because it gains such a disproportionate advantage from it.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the STV system does away with the single-Member, single-constituency link, but that is not quite true. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new schedule 3, which proposes new multi-Member constituencies. For instance, under that proposal, my seat would be subsumed into a seven-Member Glasgow seat with an electorate of 500,000. Some of those Members would, of course, be from minority parties. However, Argyll and Bute, with an electorate of 68,000, would remain a single-Member constituency, as would Orkney and Shetland, with an electorate of 35,000. Can he tell the House to which party the current Members for those constituencies belong?

David Howarth: Our proposal would do the same for the Western Isles, which is held by the Scottish National party. In any circumstances, there are certain geographical limits to the size of a seat. That is why, in any preferential system, there must be a range in the sizes of constituencies. One can have bigger seats in urban areas while retaining a sense of representing a geographical area than one can in rural areas, especially the thinly populated marine areas of the sort the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On the whole, the proportionality of the STV system comes from urban areas, because there are larger numbers of Members in those seats. That has always been the case. The proposal in 1916 was precisely that there should be STV in the cities and AV in the countryside, so it is not new.

Daniel Kawczynski: rose-

Hugh Bayley: rose-

David Howarth: I will give way to the hon. Gentlemen later, but I want to make some progress-I have not even started my speech yet.
	Although new clause 88 is far from perfect, for reasons that I will seek to explain, and although we will seek to amend it radically, we will support it in the Lobby, at least so that it is read a Second time. According to the rather peculiar procedures of this Committee-compared, for example, with local government-the only way one can press an amendment to the new clause to a Division is if the new clause is read a Second time.
	Why are the Government proposing a referendum between AV and first past the post, and not between the latter and a more proportional system? To that extent, I agree with what Conservative Members have been saying.

Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Howarth: In a second. Why have the Government come to propose such reform so late in the day? It looks like a manoeuvre to me-a death-bed conversion. In Cambridge in 1997, I was obviously identified by the Labour party as a Lib Dem voter-I was a Lib Dem councillor, so I suppose I was rather easy to spot. I received a targeted letter from the Labour candidate-all parties send them-who expressed her undying support for a referendum on electoral reform. She asked me to vote tactically for her on the ground that a Labour Government would deliver electoral reform, or at least a referendum on it.

Frank Field: What did you do?

David Howarth: I did not believe her, and given that 13 years later, no referendum has happened, I am inclined to the view that I was right not to do so. I suspect that the reason why the Prime Minister has come round to promoting a referendum again is precisely so that Labour candidates can send out more of the same kind of letters. This time, I suspect I will not be the only one not to believe them.

Oliver Heald: After all these years of going on "Question Time" and other programmes saying that the Liberal Democrats want proportional representation, does it not feel a bit odd to the hon. Gentleman to be arguing for disproportional representation? Why are the Liberal Democrats going to vote for something that Lord Jenkins and so many other commentators have described as unfair and disproportionate?

David Howarth: We will vote for amendment (b) to Government new clause 88 so that the referendum is between first past the post and a proportional system. What will we do if that is defeated? Although the new clause is a very small step in the right direction, there are two truths. First, changing the electoral system is on the political agenda, which is a big and important point for us. Secondly, AV is a preferential system, which we are in favour of. The system we support-STV-is a preferential system, but it just happens to be proportional as well.

Daniel Kawczynski: In my discussions with the Electoral Commission, it has stated that it is possible to argue that we already have so many different types of voting systems that it causes confusion for certain people. In addition, we have not sorted some of the concerns about postal ballots. Is it not better to sort out and rationalise some of those problems before we get on to the subject of voting systems?

David Howarth: No. We should just get on with doing the right thing, which is to move to a fairer electoral system that is proportionate and preferential.

John Hayes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put the answer to my question on the record once again, because he may have made a slip of the tongue, and I want to be fair to him-I am always fair, even to Liberal Democrats. Is he making it clear tonight that the critical thing for Liberal Democrats is that the system is preferential and that he is not so concerned about proportionality? We have heard from the Liberals for years about proportionality, but in the end, when push comes to shove, is proportionality less important to them than a preferential system?

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates the extent to which AV is disproportionate or worse than first past the post-sometimes it is, but not always. As I said a few moments ago, it is very difficult to predict the effects of AV, because first-preference votes will change. For us, it looks like progress, even if it is a small amount of progress, because it is precisely what the hon. Gentleman says: a preferential system. That is a small gain, but one worth having.

Pete Wishart: I note the hon. Gentleman's pain and his great concerns about voting with the Government for new clause 88. I share that pain-my party will also very reluctantly support the measure. In Scotland the hon. Gentleman's party is also reluctant to support a referendum on Scottish independence, even though that has majority support in Scotland. The proposed referendum on electoral reform has no public support whatever. Why is he against a referendum in Scotland and why will he not allow the Scottish people a choice, yet he is prepared to support a measure that nobody wants and a referendum in which no one has shown any interest in voting?

David Howarth: I fear, Sir Alan, that if I stray into that debate, I will be brought up short very quickly. The holding of a referendum is not in itself a particularly massive gain. I do not remember there being a referendum to bring in first past the post-it is the starting point simply because it is the status quo. There is a bias in favour of it simply because it is there.
	I should like to mention one thing about the Prime Minister. I heard what the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said about the Prime Minister's previous views on electoral reform and I agree with the former's position. That is another reason why I suspect the proposal is a manoeuvre. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the diaries of Lord Ashdown. I appear in those diaries, especially in volume 2, with a degree of accuracy for which I would not entirely vouch. Nevertheless, it was true at that time that the Prime Minister was seen as a fundamental block to reform. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out in the debate on the money resolution, the question before us is not whether the proposal comes from a cynical or a bad source, it is whether the idea itself is worth supporting.
	It is true, however-I fully concede this-that AV has a large number of disadvantages. It is not very proportionate. It can be less proportionate, but proportionality is, for us, an important measure. It does not seem to be an important measure for the Conservatives when they support first past the post, and I am glad to welcome them to the camp of those who believe that proportionality is an important aspect of fairness in an electoral system.
	It is true that very few seats proportionally would have changed hands under AV at the last election, if we make certain assumptions about whether people would have voted for their first preferences in the same way and what their second preferences would have been. In the end, however, there is one advantage to AV, which is that it ends tactical voting. The hon. Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) was of the view that Liberal Democrats are the main beneficiaries of tactical voting- [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that AV formalises tactical voting. What it does is end the need for tactical voting because people can vote in their real order of preference and do not have to guess about a situation in which they are voting for their fourth choice in order to keep out their fifth choice. That is an enormous advance for the legitimacy of the electoral system, because people are expressing their real political views in a way that they have not done for many decades.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Paddy Ashdown diaries. To take forward my point about cynicism and tactical voting, would he be interested to know that from C. P. Scott's diaries it is clear that in his discussions with Lloyd George in 1931, the object of the exercise was a deal to create a Lib-Lab pact for two years from 1931?

David Howarth: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no such pact now.
	The AV system is not proportionate, it does not allow a choice of candidates between members of the same party, and it still allows safe seats. Those, for us, are major disadvantages. STV, the system that we propose in amendment (b), solves all those problems. STV is simply AV in multi-member constituencies, but it is far more proportionate. The results overall from Northern Ireland, for example, show a very high degree of proportionality, even in seats with four or five members. The Scottish local government version is less proportionate. That is because it uses smaller seats with smaller numbers of members. In practice, across the whole country, if there were constituencies with between one and six members, the result would be a very high degree of proportionality.
	What is the advantage of proportionality? That is at the heart of the debate about whether we should move to a proportional system, as opposed to AV, and at the heart of the problem of legitimacy. That is why the Secretary of State was right to mention legitimacy. It is not a peripheral issue. The real problem with our politics is that this place is politically unrepresentative. It is so unlike the politics of the country that people do not recognise it. People here do not think so, but they wouldn't, would they?
	The situation is like that before the Reform Act of 1832. The Members in that Parliament thought they were perfectly representative and there was no reason for reform. But we cannot go on with a political system under which unpopular Governments are elected by a little more than a third of those voting and push through policies that two thirds of those voting have just voted against. The Governments of this country-all of them-are unpopular the day they are elected.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Great Reform Act, when there was great agitation to end the corruption that existed at the time. Although there can be endless debates about our system, which he considers to be illegitimate, where is that agitation in the country? I support the amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but to compare the situation around 1830 to bring about change with the current situation is farcical. There is no overwhelming wish for a change among the electorate. They may wish it, but it has not expressed itself in any way, and it is doubtful whether many letters are received by the hon. Gentleman on that matter.

David Howarth: The sentiment is expressed through a disaffection with politics and a hatred of politicians. To see the effects of that, we must go back to what happened after the start of the Iraq war. Millions marched and then said, "But the politicians paid no attention to us." That is where the danger is for our politics as it is currently set up.

Jeremy Browne: Is not the crucial change this: that in the 1950s the combined Labour-Conservative vote rose as high as 97 or 98 per cent. of the electorate. In those circumstances, one can see that a system designed for two parties may give an outcome that broadly reflects public opinion. At the last general election, the combined Labour-Conservative vote fell below 70 per cent. for the first time since the second world war. In the European elections last year, admittedly on a different electoral system, the combined Labour-Conservative vote for the first time fell below 50 per cent. In other words, more people did not vote for what used to be called the main parties than did. Under those circumstances, it is becoming increasingly difficult for either Labour or Conservative MPs to make a compelling case for an electoral system that rewards with absolute power parties that can command the support of only about a third of the electorate.

David Howarth: That is a very good point.

Mark Lazarowicz: With respect, it is not a good point at all. The first-past-the-post system was not good at representing the view of the electorate. In 1951 the Labour party received the votes of a higher proportion of the electorate than it ever had, yet we lost the election to the Conservatives. The system was not fair even in those days.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. First past the post did not work even in its own terms. The one thing that is said about it is that it allows electorates to throw Governments out. One often hears that argument, but even that is not true. In the last eight elections since October 1974, on six occasions the majority of those voting have voted to kick the Government out, yet found on the day after the election that the same Government were still in office. A proportional system cannot have a worse record than that.

Alan Reid: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the first-past-the-post system does not work even in its own terms. I can give the example of February 1974, when Ted Heath went to the country and said, "Back me or sack me." Under the terms of the first-past-the-post system, more of the electorate voted for him than for any other party, but he still ended up sacked.

David Howarth: So the argument works the other way round as well.
	The Secretary of State made an important and serious point about the function of general elections. It is a point that I should deal with before concluding. He said that in elections for electing an Executive, it was important to have a decisive system, whereas in elections for a more representative body which was not involved in Executive decisions, a less decisive, more proportional system was appropriate. That is the heart of the problem-we cannot carry on with the myth that a general election is about electing a Government from parties competing on the basis of their manifestos and then claiming a mandate to govern. That is fine when the winning party has 45 or 50 per cent. of the vote, but it makes little sense to anyone when the winning party has 35 per cent. of the vote. That is even laying aside the fact-obvious to everyone in politics-that no one outside the political bubble reads manifestos. There is no mandate. The mandate to govern that the current Government claim, on the basis of their majority in this House, is illusory, and the public know that.

Tom Harris: Why is the current system so much less democratic than a proportional system in which, as soon as the polls close, the parties meet behind closed doors and start trading off the manifesto commitments on which their parties have just won the election?

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates the obvious fault that I mentioned-the parties did not win the support of the public on the basis of their manifestos, because no one reads the manifestos in the first place. It is a myth. What happens in countries with proportional systems is that, yes, the parties get together to try to create a Government with majority support-and that has some chance of having the moral authority to govern. We do not have Governments with that moral authority now.

Michael Howard: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman says, will he give us an assurance that the Liberal Democrats will not produce a manifesto for the forthcoming general election?

David Howarth: I wish that I could give that assurance. Manifestos are mainly for internal consumption- [ Interruption. ] That is the reality that people do not seem to be willing to accept. Manifestos also lay out for the civil service the likely programme of a party. However, we must get away from these myths if we are to win back the trust of the public.

Tony Wright: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and agreeing with much of what he says, but is not the fundamental point that unless we decide what the electoral system is for-and different societies make it for different things-we will never agree on which form is right? If we want a rough and ready way to find a representative or to see a Government emerge, we will probably think that first past the post or an AV gloss is all right. If we think that its function is to match votes to representatives, we will prefer a proportional approach. Until we decide the fundamental question of what we want our electoral system to do, we will just go on reciting our favourite nostrums.

David Howarth: That is the central point, and that is why the Secretary of State was right to raise the point about what we are elected to this House to do. I do not think that we are electing an Executive: we are electing a representative legislature. That is a fundamental point that divides people. However, even if we were electing an Executive, first past the post does that very badly in a multi-party system, and results in Governments who are so lacking in legitimacy that we should revise our opinions of first past the post even in that case.

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Gentleman talks passionately about proportional representation, but he knows that we do not have a history of grand coalitions between the two major parties. If we had more proportional representation, the Liberal Democrats, with a relatively small number of votes, would always be in government.

David Howarth: I do not consider more than a fifth of the vote to be a small number of votes. It does not follow that a party in second or third place is automatically in government. The hon. Gentleman says that we do not have a tradition of grand coalitions, but that is because we have first past the post. Under a different system, we would have a grand coalition fairly often, because of the similarity of view on many subjects between the two parties.

Paul Holmes: Does my hon. Friend share my view about the parochial nature of much of the debate from the Conservatives and from many Labour Members? They imply that the world would fall in if we had an electoral system in which the votes cast actually resulted in proportional representation. Last year, I talked to Labour MPs from New Zealand, where they have switched from first past the post to STV, and they said that it worked fine. Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Norway and Germany are prosperous societies with successful Governments, and they all use proportional representation. What is the problem?

David Howarth: My hon. Friend is right that the debate here is often extraordinarily parochial. The idea that one can point to individual countries-Italy versus Germany, for example-to prove one way or the other that a system does not work is very simplistic. Looked at more broadly, no obvious objection to a more proportional system can be drawn from international comparisons. However, we need to look at the political situation in this country now, and how changing the electoral system could give our Governments more legitimacy than they have had for many years.

David Wilshire: It is a myth that we do not have grand coalitions in this country. What a first-past-the-post system does is create the coalitions before an election. The Conservative party certainly has two wings, as has the Labour party, and the Liberal Democrats have the Liberals and the Social Democrats. Are not those coalitions?

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's argument is more on my side than on his. As we already have coalitions within parties, would it not be better to make that more explicit and have a political system in which the public can see the different political views that are being put into the formation of a Government?
	The amendments that we propose fall into two groups. Some are associated with amendment (a) and have to do with the date of the proposed referendum. The other set of amendments comes under the rubric of amendment (b), which is all about the topic that we have been discussing so far-whether the referendum should be between AV and first past the post or STV and first past the post. Amendment (b) proposes STV instead of AV. It is an argument for an STV referendum that those of us who are prepared to vote for an AV referendum tonight are not entirely enthusiastic about it. Would it not be better to have a referendum between first past the post, which has some enthusiasts here, and a different electoral system, which has many enthusiasts here? A referendum between two competing views that have enthusiasm behind them is likely to have a higher turnout and engage the public more than a referendum in which that is not the case.
	The Government have to decide whether they really want to have this referendum or whether this is, as other hon. Members have implied, simply an exercise in gesture politics or even a case of setting up an opportunity to send out target letters. If the Government were really serious about the proposal, they would be setting it up so that an incoming Conservative Government could only reverse the duty to have a referendum by a full Act of Parliament. New clause 88 means that it will be possible for an incoming Government simply to propose the necessary statutory instrument and then defeat it using their majority. At that point, the entire duty to hold a referendum disappears.
	By having the date of the referendum way into next year, it is possible to remove the duty to have a referendum by using the Parliament Act, without having a majority in both Houses. The effect of amendment (a) would be to change the date by which there must be a referendum to May next year, so that, because of how the Parliament Act works, inevitably it would be less than 13 months from the Second Reading of any repeal Bill. A repeal Bill could not, therefore, be forced through using the Parliament Act.
	This is a test for the Government. I admit that on amendment (b), on which I would very much like to divide the Committee, there seems to be an obvious political difference about which electoral system to adopt and put into the referendum-AV or STV. There are clear differences of view on that. However, amendment (a) is about a different issue, on which I would also like to divide the Committee, if the opportunity arises. It is about whether the Government really are serious about this or just playing games. I very much hope that they are not playing games and that this is a serious proposal.

Martin Linton: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). I shall be considerably briefer than him, even if it means taking fewer interventions.
	I would like to give an unreserved welcome to Government new clause 88. Some months earlier, I tabled new clause 32, with the support of my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) and for Reading, West (Martin Salter), and 25 other hon. Members, and I think that we are entitled to say that we prompted and prodded the Government to table their new clause 88. That is not to say that the two new clauses are identical-ours, I think, is superior in a couple of respects-but if either is passed tonight, we will be content.
	New clause 32 calls for a shift to AV. It recognises that that represents only a small change from a system of x-voting to 1-2-3 voting, but I do not underestimate the difficulty of getting even that small change agreed. After all, there has not been a change in the voting system for more than 100 years. Like a tractor stuck in the mud, it requires a huge effort to move it just a few inches, because we have to overcome the forces of inertia, which we have heard plenty of tonight. I therefore thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), and the Prime Minister for tabling the new clause.
	I shall address the arguments and comments of the official Opposition. Often when I hear them barracking Labour Members, I know that they do not have any rational arguments. Their motto seems to be, "When in doubt, shout." The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who has left his seat, has tabled an amendment entitled, "Simple majority voting". First past the post might sometimes be called the majoritarian system, but it is the system that we are now trying to introduce-the AV system-that is the true majoritarian system, under which the winner must have majority support. What can be wrong with that?
	First past the post is like tossing a coin, in that it only really works when there are just two candidates. That is why it usually works for presidential elections in the States, where there are rules that make it very hard to have a third candidate on the ballot paper. Arguably, it worked reasonably well in this country until about 100 years ago, when there were usually two candidates per seat, but the moment there are three candidates, it becomes a lottery. We need only look at a classic example in Northern Ireland that I was discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). In seats where the Unionists and nationalists are evenly divided, if two Unionists and one nationalist stand, the nationalist is elected, and if two nationalists and one Unionist stand, the Unionist gets in. It is not how people vote, but who stands, that decides the result.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman, who is advancing his case for AV, recall that I made the following point to the Justice Secretary, which he did not seem to understand? Under the AV system, where a majority of 50 per cent. is the criterion for deciding whether a person gets a seat, it does not necessarily follow, as all the constitutional authorities state, that it will translate into an overall majority in the House of Commons. The crucial point about changing the electoral system is that, if the 50 per cent. rule were to apply, it should apply not only to seats, but to Parliament and therefore Government. That at least would make some kind of sense.

Martin Linton: I am enjoying listening to Conservative Members preaching proportionality to the rest of the Committee. As I understand it, they do not believe in proportionality. What the hon. Gentleman says is perfectly true: AV is perfectly fair in constituencies, but does not guarantee that the same will be true across the nation. However, it is a more proportional system than first past the post. There have been elections in which it has been less proportional, but all the studies have shown that overall it is more proportional. Most of all, however, proportionality is the wrong yardstick, because AV does not claim to be proportional to people's first preference; it claims to be proportional to people's first, second and other preferences. As an expression of what people want, it is far more accurate than first past the post.
	I was talking about the system in Northern Ireland where results depend so much on which candidates stand for election. I do not know whether there is any truth in the apocryphal story of candidates being kneecapped on their way to present their nomination papers, but it makes sense, because of the distortion that first past the post brings to the system. Of course, that happens in Britain too. We have often heard the Conservatives blaming the UK Independence party for splitting their vote, and of course I believe that Labour would have been in power for most of the previous century if it had not been for the Liberals splitting the progressive vote.[Hon. Members: "You split our vote!"] I was expecting that retort.
	We can agree, however, that that has created a massive amount of tactical voting in the system-people know that their first choice has no chance, so they vote for their second choice. People are already using their own alternative vote, therefore, only they have to do it by guess work. The Leader of the official Opposition reacted to our proposals with what, to my mind, was sheer bluster. He called AV a crazy and ridiculous system, omitting to mention that it was the system that his party used to elect him, the system that every party uses to elect their leaders, candidates and committees, the system that elected Boris Johnson Mayor of London-with the minor difference that voters had only a first and second choice-and the system used to elect every other mayor. We have never heard any complaints about it before. It is also the system used in Australia and France, although there, of course, they do it over two rounds, and as the newly elected Glasgow MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-East (Mr. Bain), pointed out, the system is used in precisely this form in Scottish council by-elections.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Australia, and I am fairly certain that it was there that somebody managed, under an AV system, to get 6 per cent. of first preference votes and get elected. Is that a system that commends itself to him?

Martin Linton: Of course, that could also be true under first past the post, but with one difference. I can think of a first-past-the-post election, although not in this country, in which somebody was elected with less than 6 per cent. The difference is that, if that freak result happened under the AV system, the result would depend on the second choices given to the other candidates, so somebody would not be elected simply with 6 per cent. of the vote.

David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Martin Linton: I must resist that, because I fear that we are going to go down a side issue.

David Wilshire: I am puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Martin Linton: I give way.

David Wilshire: I am most grateful. The hon. Gentleman claimed that under the first-past-the-post system, someone who gets 6 per cent. of the vote can be elected. I am puzzled. Could he explain how, with just 6 per cent. of the vote, under the first-past-the-post system, someone could win?

Martin Linton: I am more than happy to explain for the hon. Gentleman's sake. We have never had any MP elected on 6 per cent. in this country, but plenty of Members of the current House of Commons were elected on less than a third of the vote, and one was elected not so long ago on just over a quarter. Why are we frightened of the simple majoritarian principle that MPs should have majority support?
	Some of my colleagues in Scotland complain about the systems used in the Scottish Parliament and Scottish council elections, but AV has nothing to do with those systems. AV is not proportional representation; it is just 1-2-3 voting. It keeps the constituency link, it is no more likely to lead to hung Parliaments and it makes it even more difficult for extreme parties to get elected, because they need majority support. AV is also proportional to what voters want, because it looks at their first and second choices, and it does not lead to the danger of having MPs elected with only a third or a quarter of the vote.
	I would invite any colleague to find a voter who objects to being given a second choice. On the contrary, the public seem to love it. For instance, "The X Factor" is a long, drawn-out version, over several weeks and several rounds, of a preferential system. Indeed, if "The X Factor" had been run on first past the post, the Jedward twins would have won, because they came top in the first round, albeit admittedly with only 10 per cent. That would have been a travesty-not only a musical travesty, but a democratic travesty, because they got only 10 per cent. of the vote.
	The reason we are frightened of a system that gives us simple majoritarian rule is that we are all transfixed by calculations of party advantage. We are not just asking, "Will AV be good for the voter or fairer?"; we are asking, "Will AV help me?" I should point out that there are two very different ways of calculating what would happen under a different voting system. First, there is the static analysis, whereby past elections are rerun, assuming that people would vote the same way, even with a different system of toting up their votes. I am sure that we have all seen those analyses. However, I shall not rehearse them here, because they do not help us at all.
	Then there are the dynamic analyses, where we look at what happens under different systems or in different elections in different countries. I have spent a fair amount of time writing about elections-mainly in newspapers, but sometimes in books-and I would caution hon. Members very much against believing the static analysis of what would happen. AV is a different ball game, and how people would vote would change quite a bit. Candidates with a strong tactical vote could find their first-choice vote unravelling, because there is no point in voting tactically under AV.
	Simply putting someone's results at the last election through an algorithm does not tell us what will happen. What we should look at is the dynamic analysis. Let us look at the elections held under AV-mayoral elections, Australian or French elections, or Scottish council by-elections. In all those elections, it is impossible to see any particular advantage to any party. The only clear advantage is to the voter, who gets a clearer choice. What happens in AV elections is that candidates and parties act in a slightly different way, paying more attention to the other people's second choices, and that is surely no bad thing. Under AV, it is no good being a Marmite candidate-one whom the minority loves, but the majority hates. Candidates need more of a rainbow appeal. Frankly, when we look at the history of British elections over the past 20 years, is that not the lesson that we should learn from our electoral system?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman said that the only people who had an advantage under an AV system were the voters. That is not strictly true, is it? The other advantage is felt by very small and often quite extreme political parties, which are peculiarly disadvantaged by the first-past-the-post system.  [ Interruption. ] It is true. The first-past-the-post system is not entirely fair to those parties, and that is one of its virtues, not one of its vices.

Martin Linton: If that is a virtue of the first-past-the-post system, it must be an even greater virtue of the alternative vote system, because small, extreme parties would need to have the support of a majority of a constituency-albeit on second or third preferences-which would make it more difficult for them to be elected. However, the result would be closer to what people actually want.

Tom Levitt: The other people who would benefit from AV are all the Members of this House. Everyone would then be able to say, "I have the conditional or actual support of more than 50 per cent. of my electorate, and that gives me greater authority." In my three elections, that has happened to me only once, and unfortunately only one in three Members can say that it happened to them at the last election.

Martin Linton: Indeed. As they were speaking earlier, I looked up many of the Members taking part in this evening's debate, and I found that, with some notable exceptions, very few of them have more than 50 per cent. However, new clause 88 is important not just because a 2015 election might be fought on AV, but because the 2010 election might be fought at least partly on that issue. I want to be able to tell the voters who support change in the voting system-there are a lot in my constituency, even if there are not many in those of some other Members present-that I will vote for a referendum, and that I will vote for change in that referendum.

Alan Whitehead: I have listened to my hon. Friend's analysis of AV carefully. Would he also care to reflect on one of the other advantages of AV, which is that, under such a system, the battle in any election does not necessarily coalesce around 70 or 80 key seats? People's votes count for a lot more, and therefore the contest is much more widespread, particularly under the dynamic analysis that he has presented. That means that a party wanting to put large amounts of money into a small number of seats might be disadvantaged. That would be a much fairer result for the British electorate, rather than having people using large amounts of money to buy the votes of a small number of people in a small number of seats.

Martin Linton: That is true. Although it would not have the same effect as a totally proportional system, AV would push elections in the direction of being more sensitive not just to the core voters of a particular party, but to the electorate in each constituency. That would focus politicians' minds on winning over the second preferences from other parties. That is a good discipline, and one that, at this moment in Parliament's history, would not go amiss.
	I want AV to be an issue at the next election, so that I can make it clear to people in my constituency who want change that I will support it, and so that the referendum will happen. That will expose the shallowness of the Conservative commitment to change. There is little in this country in such obvious need of change as the voting system, and if the Conservatives oppose change, they will lose any credibility as a party of change. What is wrong with giving voters a choice in a referendum? What is wrong with expecting MPs to be backed by a majority of their voters? What is wrong with allowing voters to express a second preference? What is wrong with putting a bit more choice in the hands of the voter? The Opposition do not have any answers to any of those questions.
	What we are debating is a small step, but frankly we owe it to the voters. Whether we are personally involved in the expenses scandal or not, this Parliament has shaken the voters' faith in us. We have been shown up to be acting in our own interests, rather than in the interests of our constituents. Here is a classic case where we can improve the voting system-from the voters' point of view, not from ours. That is the very least that we can do to help to restore the voters' trust in the democratic system.

Patrick Cormack: I will not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) in detail. I want to make a brief speech, because I know that many colleagues wish to take part in the debate.
	I want to make just a few points. First, I regret the fact that time is being spent on this proposal, because there is absolutely no chance of its reaching the statute book. We all know that, and that includes the Government. We are wasting parliamentary time, as this Parliament ebbs out to a rather inglorious close. Those who would like us to be properly debating the subject of this afternoon's statement-after-hours doctors services-or the issue of higher education cuts will see this as yet another example of parliamentary navel gazing. There is no public demand for this change. We are debating it for one reason only. That is that the Prime Minister feels that there is likely to be a hung Parliament-I am not saying that I agree with him-and he is offering an olive branch to another party, which he thinks might help to sustain him in office. It is cynical and as simple as that.
	I shall not be contesting the next general election. I shall miss this place greatly. I have always had the great advantage of being returned with over 50 per cent. of the vote, and I believe that those of us who have always been in that position have a case to answer. However, the answer is most certainly not AV. If I go to vote-I dare say that this applies to most people in the Chamber tonight-I do not wish to vote for a second preference candidate. I know whom I want to vote for, and if that person and that party were eliminated, I should want time to reflect.
	That is why the only other system that I would contemplate-although I am very happy with the status quo-is the one that was advanced in a brief but telling speech by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). The two-round election is a simple system, and it has a degree of fairness about it. If a Conservative voter went to the polls and found that the Conservative candidate was not in the first two, there would be time for that voter to reflect on the track record of those who remained, on their affinity with the local community, and on their views on issues that were perhaps not political but moral in nature. The voter could weigh up all those factors and cast their vote accordingly for one of the two candidates and, at the end of the day, one candidate would emerge with over 50 per cent. of the vote. I know that, under that system, there can very occasionally be a tie, but the right hon. Gentleman looks after that eventuality in his amendment.

Christopher Huhne: I fail to see the advantage of the system that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) are proposing, compared with the alternative vote. After all, under the alternative vote system, all the factors that the hon. Gentleman has just described are available to the voter in the run-up to an election. He was telling us earlier how important it is to save public money, yet he now seems to be suggesting doubling the cost of general elections by having two rounds.

Patrick Cormack: I was very careful to say that I preferred the status quo, but if there were to be a change, this is the one system that would commend itself to many people. I have said this over many years in the House, in articles and elsewhere, so there is no question of my changing my mind.
	My greatest objection to the AV system is that the voter has to state preferences when they really want to vote for a particular individual and, often, a particular party. They do not want to be asked for a second preference after they have cast their vote. I also find compelling the argument that there is a real danger of giving disproportionate power and influence to those who vote for fringe candidates. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was either too sensitive or, unkind people might say, too mealy-mouthed to mention the British National party, but AV has the potential to give influence to those who vote for zany parties, for silly minority parties and for downright evil minority parties. That is something that we have to take into account.

Roger Godsiff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Cormack: I will, but I am anxious that everyone should get in, and I am conscious of the time.

Roger Godsiff: The hon. Gentleman said that the AV system forced people to cast their votes in order of preference. With great respect, that is not true. Under AV, a voter may cast a single vote for one candidate. Their vote would not be invalid if they did not mark the rest of their ballot paper with second, third, fourth or fifth preferences.

Patrick Cormack: I concede that point. One does not have to express further preferences.
	My other point is still valid, however. The Government have introduced this measure for rather shabby reasons, which were brilliantly exposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in his very entertaining opening speech. I do not believe that the hearts of the Lord High Chancellor and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills)-an effective and agreeable Minister who, sadly, is not standing again-are in this. They are going through the motions because they feel obliged to do so. They are doing this with a reasonable degree of compliance because they know that, at the end of the day, these measures are not going to become law. The timetable makes that impossible. We were originally going to have four days in which to discuss the Bill; we are now on the sixth, and there will be at least one more. Then, it will have to go to another place, and because certain parts of the Bill have not been debated at all in this place, there will be a need for further thorough scrutiny and debate.
	This is therefore a cynical exercise, which is taking Parliament's eye off the ball on which it should be focused-namely, the great national and international affairs of the day. As I said when we debated the money resolution earlier, this is another example of the Government treating this place with contempt and pretending to be the servant of democracy. They are not. There is no perfect system, but the one that we have at the moment is infinitely better than the one that is being proposed. The only other system worthy of consideration is the one that is the subject of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead.

Roger Godsiff: Although this is hardly the dominant issue on the doorstep or in the pubs and clubs, I welcome the Government's commitment to holding a referendum on the alternative vote system. I have no problem with the concept of referendums. We had one on EU membership in the 1970s, one in Scotland on the setting up of the Scottish Parliament, and one in Wales on the setting up of the Welsh Assembly. We should also have had one on the Lisbon treaty, and I voted for such a referendum in the House, unlike my friends on the Liberal Benches who were split three ways: some were for, some were against, and some did not know.
	I am not in favour of the concept of proportional representation, because it results in minority parties being able to determine who will govern, and extracting their price accordingly. We have only to look at the most purist example of PR-the Israeli Parliament-to see the consequences of purist PR. I have always supported the alternative vote system because it is not PR but an improved version of the first-past-the-post system. I am somewhat surprised that those who argue strongly for the first-past-the-post system-of which I am also a supporter-cannot see that AV represents an improvement on it while retaining the constituency link.
	The essence of the alternative vote system is that the winning candidate has to get 50 per cent. plus one vote. As a number of Members have said, what can be wrong with that, when only a third of right hon. and hon. Members were elected by more than 50 per cent. of the electors in their constituencies? It also means that electors who support minority parties, particularly in so-called safe seats, can exercise their choice without feeling that their votes are wasted. As I said to my good friend, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), it allows them to have a second, third or fourth choice-depending on how many candidates there are on the ballot paper. What it does not do is force people to vote more than once. If people wish to cast only one vote for one candidate, they can do so and their vote is not invalidated. If they choose to vote for a minority candidate-as some would say, to vote with their hearts first of all-they will also have a second choice to vote with their heads afterwards.

John Hayes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that point, which was rejected in my earlier intervention. He is right that black-hearted supporters of small parties would have at least greater influence, if not greater power. Surely, he would recognise that that is a bad thing, not a good thing, for our democracy.

Roger Godsiff: Somebody once said that democracy is a very bad form of government, but all the others are so much worse. Democracy means that the elector has the right to choose whatever candidate they want to vote for. The party they vote for is their choice. In a democratic society, unless a party is not proscribed from standing, candidates belonging to that party are entitled to have their names on the ballot paper so that people can vote for them. That is called democracy.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that AV actually works against smaller parties? It is almost impossible for a UKIP or, say, a Green candidate to secure 50 per cent. of the vote in an individual constituency, but they might just sneak in with 27 or 28 per cent. in a normal first-past-the-post election. AV is not going to help smaller parties to get parliamentary representation in any way.

Roger Godsiff: I did not suggest that it did. I was arguing for the virtues of an alternative vote system as an improved version of first-past-the-post. My good friend is arguing for a totally different system, which he is perfectly entitled to do, that he feels is more favourable to smaller parties. I understand his argument, but I am arguing for the alternative vote system because I believe it embodies the best aspects of first past the post, but also builds on and improves it. That is why I intend to support what I believe will be a sensible change.
	Let me start to conclude by responding to some of the comments made about the Jenkins report. It has been said tonight in rather reverential terms, as though the departed Lord Jenkins was a totally unbiased and disinterested individual with no vested interests whatever in the single transferable vote top-up system that he proposed. It needs to be put on the record that Lord Jenkins was an outstanding and distinguished parliamentarian: he was Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1960s Labour Government; he was Home Secretary in the 1974 Labour Government; he was the Labour nominee for President of the European Union; and he was a founder member of the Social Democratic party, which was set up, in his own words, to "break the mould" of politics and destroy the Labour party. He was elected to this place as an SDP Member; he then became a distinguished member of the Liberal-SDP pact.

Mark Lazarowicz: Before my hon. Friend goes too far in suggesting that the Jenkins commission was a personal exercise by Lord Jenkins who put forward nothing but his own interest, I am sure that he would accept that it was a commission of all parties, including Baroness Gould, who was a Labour party organiser herself. I do not think that one should suggest that this was a Jenkins-only commission; it was a broad-based commission receiving broad support, as reflected in the submissions made to it.

Roger Godsiff: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the fact of the matter is that this is always cited as "the Jenkins report" and Lord Jenkins was the father of it as chairman of the commission. It is therefore right to point out, as I had started to do, that although he was a great and distinguished parliamentarian, he was hardly disinterested in the system that was proposed.
	As many other Members have said, there is no perfect electoral system: all have their flaws; all have their benefits. I really believe, however, that the first-past-the-post system, as improved by AV, is a good system. It is one that the Australians use and it has served that country well. It has reflected the majority viewpoint of the Australian electorate ever since it was introduced. I very much welcome the Government's proposal this evening, which will at least allow the people of this country to pass judgment on whether they think it is a good or a bad thing.

Michael Howard: Last week, Lord Turnbull, who knows the Prime Minister particularly well, having served as his permanent secretary at the Treasury for four years, delivered his verdict on the Personal Care at Home Bill. He said in the other place that it was
	"a classic Gordon Brown dividing line. It is not drawn on merits but has been chosen to set a trap for the Opposition".-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 2010; Vol. 717, c. 67.]
	That was a devastating indictment of the Prime Minister from a former Cabinet Secretary who did not choose those words lightly. Exactly the same verdict applies to the measure before us this evening.
	At Prime Minister's questions last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition brilliantly exposed the cynicism of the Prime Minister's deathbed conversion to electoral reform. According to the previous Prime Minister, whenever a previous attempt was made when he was in office to reach agreement with the Liberal Democrats in order to introduce electoral reform, the present Prime Minister was what Mr. Blair described as the "primary block".
	Later last week, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that it was not possible to introduce reform in 1998 because there was no consensus, but the reason why there was no consensus at that time was that the Prime Minister himself blocked it. No one should be under any misapprehension about the Prime Minister's motives in bringing forward this measure today. As Lord Turnbull said, it has nothing to do with the "merits" of the case as its only purpose is to "set a trap" for the Opposition.
	Let me turn to the merits. When it comes to electoral systems, a clear choice is available. On the one hand, we can choose a system that conforms to some abstract notion of "fairness"-a concept that should perhaps be placed in inverted commas in this context, because of its many disadvantages. On the other hand, we can choose a system that is likely to deliver effective government provided by a single majority party. We cannot have both and we cannot have perfection.
	It is possible to have a system that is perfectly proportional-a system that gives parties a proportion of seats in Parliament that corresponds exactly to the proportion of votes that they obtained at the preceding election. Thirty per cent. of the votes will give a party 30 per cent. of the seats; 5 per cent. of the votes will give it 5 per cent. of the seats, and so on. That is the system that is closest to the abstract notion of fairness that I described earlier, and it is the system that corresponds most closely to the needs of proportionality, which the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has said is at the heart of the debate.
	Here are some of the disadvantages of that system. First, it is completely inconsistent with any kind of constituency link-it is impossible to combine a constituency link with perfect proportional representation. Secondly, every Member elected under such a system must be elected on the basis of a party nomination, so the influence of the party at the expense of the individual Member of Parliament is immeasurably increased. That is not a consequence that would necessarily gain unanimous or even majority support in the House of Commons or beyond.
	Thirdly, when such a system is in force, it tends to give wholly disproportionate influence to small, often extremist parties. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) has pointed out, the state of Israel has exactly that system. Its Government, throughout their existence, have been bedevilled by the influence of small and extremist parties, and I do not think it an example that we should follow.

Christopher Huhne: rose-

David Howarth: rose-

Michael Howard: I will give way. The hon. Gentlemen had better decide between them who should go first.

David Howarth: I will go first.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it is difficult, or even impossible, for independent Members to be elected under proportional systems. That is entirely untrue of the single transferable vote. The Irish experience has been that it is quite straightforward for independent Members to be elected, even independent Members who have rebelled against their parties.

Michael Howard: The single transferable vote is not perfectly proportional. I am talking about a system which exists in other countries, and which represents exactly the concept of fairness and proportionality on which the Liberal Democrats place so much emphasis. I shall say more about that shortly.
	The fourth disadvantage of such a system is that the formation of a Government under it is almost always a protracted process involving backroom deals behind closed doors. During those negotiations, manifesto promises made by parties are jettisoned-as we have just heard, the Liberal Democrats do not think that that matters at all-so that it becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify anything resembling a covenant between the voters and the Government whom they elect.

Mark Lazarowicz: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has ably described the disadvantages of a pure proportional representation system. Does he accept that no Member today has suggested such a pure PR system? May I also point out that the PR system in Germany has given that country very stable government for some 50 years?

Michael Howard: I accept that no one is, for the moment, proposing a system of that kind, but that is the only system that provides perfect fairness and perfect proportionality. It must be recognised that those who do not want a system with those disadvantages cannot have a perfectly proportional system. It is not possible to have a system that complies with the abstract notion of fairness, of which we hear so much from the Liberal Democrats and which is so beloved by advocates of electoral reform.

John Gummer: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not avoid answering the question posed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) about the system in Germany. Because of that system, the smallest party achieving sufficient numbers has had the Foreign Secretary for most of the period since the war, and the Free Democrats are always over-represented.

Michael Howard: My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right.

Sammy Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly pointed out that all the arguments in favour of AV, or moving from AV to proportional representation, are about fairness. However, we in Northern Ireland know that when such a system is used not only for electing people but subsequently for forming a Government, we are left with a Government who are divided and indecisive. Rather than enhancing the standing of the legislature in the eyes of the people, that indecision reduces their confidence in the system. That is the fundamental weakness of what is being proposed here tonight.

Michael Howard: In fact, the hon. Gentleman exemplifies the unpredictability of the system that is being proposed here tonight.
	The principal alternative to proportional representation is, of course, first past the post, whose great merit is that, much more often than not, it delivers a Parliament in which one party has an overall majority. That creates at least the possibility-although not the certainty, as we have seen in the past 13 years-of firm and effective government. It preserves the constituency link; it gives Members of Parliament an individual mandate; the formation of a Government normally takes place immediately after the election; and it makes it more difficult for extremist parties to gain power. Now, it does not, of course, comply with the abstract notion of fairness that I have previously described. Indeed, it can be very unfair. At the last general election, for example, although the Conservative party obtained more votes than Labour in England, we got 92 fewer seats in England. That extreme unfairness would be remedied to some extent by the proposals in new clause 99, which I welcome, but those proposals would not extinguish that unfairness completely. I believe, however, that that is the price that has to be paid in order to obtain the advantages of first past the post.
	The Government's proposal seeks to find a compromise between these two models and, like most such proposals, it falls between two stools. It delivers neither fairness nor the advantages of first past the post. It gives wholly disproportionate power and influence to those whose first preference is for the least popular and least representative option before them. I do not believe that we should introduce a system that gives disproportionate influence and power to people who have those views. They are perfectly entitled to have those views, and they are perfectly entitled to vote for parties that represent those views, but I do not see any reason why we should give them disproportionate influence and power by giving them the opportunity to vote again and again and to have, perhaps, the decisive influence in the decision as to which candidate should represent their constituency. The Government option gives us the worst of all worlds, therefore.

Michael Wills: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that this system is used in London, although with slight variation, but does he accept that the nightmare he is conjuring up did not take place in London?

Michael Howard: No, it did not, and it will not happen every time; of course, there will be many occasions when AV will not actually produce that dangerous outcome, but the potential of its being produced is inherent in the system, and it is maximised in an election of Members of Parliament and a potential Government.
	Under the system the Government propose, instead of coming to this place as the first choice of their constituents, Members of Parliament would be sent here as their second, or even third, choice. It is a recipe for a second or third-best Parliament, and a second or third-best Government. That is the last thing our country needs, faced, as we are, with our greatest challenge for a generation or more. For those reasons, I hope this misguided, misconceived and mistimed proposal is decisively rejected by the Committee this evening.

Mark Lazarowicz: My starting point for this discussion is as somebody who has supported proportional representation for more than 20 years. I support it simply because it is a fairer, more democratic system. It is neither fair nor democratic for us to have a system under which a party with a relatively small minority of votes can be rewarded with a clear majority of seats. That is unfair for both the parties involved and the electorate, whose wishes are therefore not accurately reflected in the make-up of Parliament. No system is perfect or perfectly fair, but I have long believed that we should move to a fairer and more democratic system. That is what we should be seeking to do.
	The alternative vote system is not a proportional system, of course, but although it can in some circumstances distort results more than a first-past-the-post system, it also has some advantages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) has pointed out, under it every MP could say that they had the positive support of half the electorate in their constituency, which most MPs cannot say at present. Also, although it is not a proportional system, when electoral support is evenly balanced between parties, the AV system is likely to stop one party having an overall majority when the votes do not justify that. I accept that when one party is particularly popular or unpopular, it can exaggerate the effect, but overall I would argue that the alternative vote system in more likely to lead to a result that reflects voters' wishes. That is certainly the case when the parties are more evenly balanced. It also has the advantage of keeping the constituency link, which I think is important, and, as has been said, it takes away the need for people to vote tactically. They can vote as they want to in a particular constituency for a particular election.
	As I have said, the alternative vote system is not a proportional system. That is why I support some form of additional member system, such as those used in Germany, Scotland and Wales and that recommended in the Jenkins commission's report. That is why I tabled an amendment in those terms that, unfortunately, will not be voted on tonight.
	As some form of additional member system is not on the agenda tonight, I am happy to support the Government's proposal for a referendum on the alternative vote system. As it is moved prior to the election, it might become law by the end of this Parliament. There is an assumption that it will not become law, but it will not become law only if there is obstruction to the proposal by the other place, if it passes through this House. I hope that all parties will see the benefit, if this House so decides, of supporting the opportunity of giving voters a choice in a referendum.

William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House where the demand for this electoral change is coming from? Why are we dealing with it at a time when the life of this Parliament is running out? Why is it urgent now?

Mark Lazarowicz: A referendum would of course take place at some stage before 2011. My position is clear-I support a move to a fair electoral system. I would have liked it to have been proposed earlier, but better late than never. I certainly would like to see it go forward at this stage.

Mark Harper: I am finding intellectual inconsistency in what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. From his point of view, I can see the merit, as shown by his amendment, in moving from AV to a top-up system, but given that we will not be voting on that and that he has said that he will support the Government, it seems to me that the alternative vote does not fulfil any of the requirements that he has just set out about being more proportional or being fairer. I am at a loss to understand why he will still support it.

Mark Lazarowicz: I sought to express-perhaps not clearly enough for the hon. Gentleman-that I think that the proposal has some advantages. I also believe that overall it would be more likely to lead to a fairer result. It means, as I have said, that MPs would have a stronger mandate in their constituencies, which is important. I also support a move towards an AV system, because, bluntly, I feel that if we move towards that system, we will in due course move further. I think that we will move to an AV-plus system once we have opened the door and had the debate. I believe that we will move in due course to a more genuinely proportional system, which I would welcome and would like to see introduced.
	Of course, another amendment will be voted on, which is that proposed by the Liberal Democrats. It would introduce a single transferable vote system. That is a position that has some attractions for those who want to move towards a proportional system, if AV-plus is not on the agenda. However, my experience of the way in which STV has worked in local government in Scotland leads me to believe that it would have many drawbacks as a system, if it were to apply here in the UK. It does not lead to the rather idyllic picture that we have of voters choosing between the candidates of different parties-voting in a primary, as it were.
	The Scottish situation shows us that in most cases in local government, one of two things has happened. First, when one party is able to get more than two members elected under the STV system in a local government ward, the strongest argument in a candidate's favour is not how they behave as a member but whether they are called Anderson or Young. In 90 per cent. of the cases in which two members were put up by the same party but only one was elected, it was the one whose name began with the letter that came earlier in the alphabet who was elected rather than the one whose name came lower down the alphabet.

David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that also happens in multi-member first-past-the-post council elections? I have seen it happen many times that someone whose name is earlier in the alphabet gets elected, while their colleague further down the list does not.

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed, but the effects would be much smaller in a first-past-the-post, or first two-past-the-post, system than in an STV system, as I think the hon. Gentleman would accept if he examined the way in which that system works.
	Another situation applies in Scotland that is relevant with a three-party system, which we have in most parts of the country, and with a four, five or even six-party system, which we have in some places. Instead of putting forward two candidates to give voters a choice, political parties put forward only one because they know that they will get only one in, and they do not want to risk neither candidate getting in because of some accident in the voting system. As a result, most members' seats are safer under the STV system than under the previous system. Let me give an example. My local government ward in Edinburgh has four councillors-in order of votes, a Labour member, a Scottish National party member, a Liberal Democrat and a Green. If either the Conservatives or Labour were doing particularly well, they might displace the Green and get the last seat, but three out of those four seats will almost certainly be held by Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats for ever, because whatever those members do, they will not lose their seats as long as they keep with their party.
	The argument about the STV and giving voters a choice between candidates in the same party might well apply when there are large numbers of candidates for particular seats, or where there are not two, three, four or five-party systems, but I urge the Liberal Democrats and any Labour Members who support the STV system to look at how it works in Scotland. They will find that it does not bring the democratic advantages that they think it does. For that reason, I will not support the proposal for an STV system today. I hope that the proposal for AV goes forward today and that that will be a move towards a fairer and genuinely democratic system-a true system of proportional representation for election to this House.

Pete Wishart: I rise not just to support this modest measure, but to mock and disparage it. Of all the electoral reforms that this Government could have brought forward, these are about as modest and timorous as any Government could propose. Let me be clear: as we have heard in many fine contributions to the debate tonight, the proposals would do nothing to improve proportionality and would not bring us any closer to delivering or securing fairer votes. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), who is no longer present, the proposals would instead act against smaller parties. There is very little chance of smaller parties such as the Greens or the UK Independence party securing anything like 50 per cent. of the vote, so an AV system would not be in their interests, but they might sneak into a constituency at the next general election with 25 or 26 per cent. of the vote in a first-past-the-post system. There is no way that they will get more than 50 per cent. of the vote, so AV will in no way practically assist smaller parties.
	However, we will support the measure, even though it is one of the most modest and timorous electoral reforms that the Government could have proposed, because it will give individual electors in our constituencies greater choice. It will empower them that little bit more and will allow them to make positive choices about how they vote, and we will support them in all of that. We will also support the measure because it gives the-perhaps misguided-impression that this is one of the first steps along a road of greater electoral reform. I note that some Labour Back Benchers-not many have contributed to the debate, although many have commented in the press-have said that they believe this change to be a start on the slippery slope to full PR and constitutional reform. It is worth supporting solely on that basis.
	As a number of Members-most notably the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)-have said, we in Scotland have got used to electoral reform. We have had full electoral reform: we have the additional Member system for the Scottish Parliament and an STV system in local authority elections. Both of those systems deliver fair votes and are totally proportionate. As the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, a lot of guff has been spoken here tonight about Scotland. There have been no complaints about our system of PR in elections to the Scottish Parliament, except perhaps from Labour Back Benchers from Scotland who lament the fact that they are losing their presence-their vast, incredible Labour majorities on a minority of the vote. It is they who lament the fact that proportional representation has come to Scotland, and they continue to deride and decry our system of proportional representation in the Scottish Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith was obviously right to mention some of the shortcomings and shortfalls of STV in local authority elections, but he would have to concede that local councils in Scotland now reflect how votes are cast. People from Edinburgh to Shetland see local authorities that represent how they have voted. That is a vast improvement in the town halls, which were dominated by Labour members who won an absolute minority of the votes.

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Gentleman speaks in favour of proportional representation, so does that mean that he was happy for the Scottish minority Government's budget to be held up by just two Green MSPs?

Pete Wishart: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it was not held up by just two Green MSPs. It was held up by the Labour party, the Liberal party and two Green MSPs.
	One of the benefits of the proportional representation system in the Scottish Parliament is that it has given the Conservative party influence in Scotland. It has been able to say-consistently and probably with some justification-that it can influence some of the Scottish Government's actions and decisions. That is how minority government works. It is a good and positive thing. It should be embraced. All the claims about majoritarianism and the need for absolute majorities in Parliament ignore the positive influence that smaller parties can secure, which can be a good thing. The argument is always about how we must have overwhelming majorities in this House, yet that is what we have had for 13 years and what has been the result? Has the legislation that the Government have produced taken us forward? I would argue for a coalition Government or a minority Government any day, if that were able to deliver real results.
	It is an outrage that the first-past-the-post system in Scotland means that Labour can secure almost 70 per cent. of Scottish MPs on something like 40 per cent. of the vote. The alternative vote system will not do anything to address that electoral abuse, or to make it possible to have real contests in individual constituencies.
	I am interested in the whole concept of referendums, because we have been trying to have a constitutional referendum in Scotland for the past two years. We have wanted the Scottish people to have a choice about their future, but we have been told that that was not possible or desirable. It was claimed that giving the Scottish people a choice about the nation's future would cause the sky to fall in and lead to Scotland's instant demise.
	The Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties have all resisted the option of allowing Scotland a constitutional choice about its future. The most fundamental reason given-and it has come from every Labour Member, from the Prime Minister down- is that we cannot have a constitutional referendum because of the recession and the economic downturn.
	However, all that is put aside when it comes to the modest constitutional referendum being proposed tonight. It is not even an issue, or anything to be concerned about: we can go ahead and have the referendum. I am sure that, when they watch this debate, the Scottish people will be able to see through what is going on. They will see that the Labour party is happy to have a constitutional referendum on a proposal that is no more than a modest, timorous little piece of constitutional tinkering, but that it is not prepared to give them a real choice about the future.
	I was out canvassing in Perth, like most hon. Members-although by that I do not mean that others have been canvassing there, at least I hope that they have not. I do not think that one person came up to me and said, "The big thing that I am interested in, Mr. Wishart, is more choice in my constituency. I am really fascinated by what the Prime Minister had to say about the alternative vote system." Nothing like that happened, but what people do still ask is, "When are we getting a referendum in Scotland? When are we getting our choice?"
	It may be true that not everyone wants Scottish independence, but up to 60 per cent. of the Scottish people want to have their say in the future of Scotland and how our nation should go forward. Why is it all right, therefore, to have a constitutional referendum on this modest proposal but yet deny the Scottish people the real choice about their futures?
	We will support this modest proposal tonight, for the reasons that I have set out. We will not play the same game as Labour and say that we will get in the way of the referendum. I believe that it is right for Governments to allow people to have a choice on these issues. I respect the Government's decision to put the referendum to the UK people, but I just wish that the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties would allow the Scottish people to have the same choice about their future on a much more important question. This is all about trusting the people. I am prepared to trust the people with the Government's proposed referendum on AV. Why do the Government not trust the Scottish people with the constitutional future of the nation of Scotland? One rule applies in this situation; it should apply across the board.

Mark Durkan: Several hon. Members have spoken about fairness and proportionality, and on that basis I support the Liberal Democrat amendments. People have referred to the Irish example, and I am very familiar with the electoral system in the Irish Republic and the similar-although until recently not exactly the same-version of the single transferable vote system that we have in Northern Ireland. The Irish people mandated that system for us when they voted for the Good Friday agreement, which promised that the Northern Ireland Assembly would be elected on the basis of STV for the very good reason that people wanted it to be fair, inclusive and proportionate. So, I have strong sympathies with the Liberal Democrat case.
	When it comes to council by-elections in Northern Ireland, Dail by-elections in the south and the election of the Irish President, STV morphs into and, in effect, runs as an alternative vote system. It stands out as a very good thing when it comes to electing a key figurehead, such as a national President, because people want the person who embodies and is meant to epitomise the values and spirit of their country to have the clear endorsement of at least a majority of its citizens. The alternative vote system, as a result of STV, has those benefits, but I am realistic enough to know that the real issue tonight will not be about the single transferable vote and first past the post.
	In many ways the real issue is not even about an outright choice between the alternative vote and first past the post; it is about whether, in principle, there should be a referendum that at least puts the choice before the public. Parliament has been embarrassed not just by the facts of the expenses scandal, but by the ridiculous fact that none of us has been able to explain or excuse outright, first, how information was suppressed for so long, then, how things were handled and mismanaged and, even now, the confusion about what reforms there will or will not be. Parliament voted for an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and received the Kelly report, but now there is confusion about which measure stands, which will be revised and which will not. So, at a time when we as a Parliament are open to ridicule, it is the height of arrogance for us to decide that the public should never have the right to say, "There might be a better way of electing people to Parliament so that MPs might have a bit more credibility after all this."
	The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said that we have to decide what Parliament is for-why we elect MPs. It is not just for us to decide why people elect Parliaments, however; the public can decide. If the public are given a referendum on such an issue, they will have a say on the quality of the mandate that they want their MP to have. The public will have a right to say whether they are able to trust themselves to express an honest first preference and considered second and third preferences, or whether, for their own ideological reasons, they just want to plump for one candidate.
	We should give the public the choice to have that choice, rather than say that they cannot cope with it. Some Members cannot cope with choice because they cannot cope with filling in forms and justifying things, but that does not mean that the public cannot cope with clear and honest choice. So long as we have the first-past-the-post system, electors will be locked into situations in which they have to calculate possible tactical votes while being browbeaten by all sorts of propaganda about who is the only person capable of defeating another party. People are often misled: they do not cast their honest preference and support parties with particular policies; they surrender their vote on the purely negative ground of trying to prevent somebody else from being elected.
	Rather than putting things in the hands of those who come up with the best propaganda and the most misleading graphics on electoral trends, surely it is much better to put things in the hands of honest voters-not the dishonest spin merchants working on behalf of political parties. We should make sure that the election of an MP is not decided by the people who control all the party lists and manage things. We should make sure that the overall election outcome is not decided by the parties' targeting of swing voters in the battleground constituencies, who become the only people to determine elections.
	I have heard a lot from Conservatives about how under the alternative vote system everybody's vote is not the same and how it means that those voting for small parties end up having a bigger say than those who vote for big ones, but that is not true, because everybody's vote counts equally in the end. The people supporting a system with unequal voting are those who defend first past the post, under which the election will be decided by a very small fraction of targeted swing voters spread throughout the UK in marginal constituencies. Let us be honest about some of the arguments being made.
	I have a particular reason for wanting to move to a more proportional system; if the only one effectively on offer is the alternative vote, I shall vote for that this evening. My reason is to do with the experience in Northern Ireland. Whenever we negotiated the Good Friday agreement, one of the things that some of us did, late in the negotiations-particularly when the then Prime Minister Tony Blair was present-was to argue that we also needed a different electoral system for the Northern Ireland seats at Westminster.
	We argued that on the grounds that, if we were to make the power-sharing Assembly work and to make inclusion work, and if we were to create a new political ethic, we would not have very much success if every time a Westminster election came along we were convulsed back to sectarian impulses-having to vote orange and green. The thinking would be, "Which Green candidate is most likely to beat the Orange one?", or, "Which Orange candidate is most likely to keep out the Green one?"
	In Northern Ireland, we still find ourselves constantly drawn and sucked back to those sectarian, tribal instincts. Some of us are committed to trying to allow politics to move on and to bringing about the emancipation of a new political ethic in Northern Ireland; it will be bad for that project if we stay stuck with first past the post, which keeps us trapped in sterile arguments.
	In the 2001 Westminster election, Sinn Fein ran an essentially geo-sectarian campaign of "greening the west". Some of us made the honest choice not to go into sectarian electoral pacts; we believed that the parties should stand on their own distinct principles and we were fighting our cause. My party suffered as a result of that principle, because the instinct was, "We have Unionist MPs in a number of constituencies in the west of Northern Ireland who represent only a minority of the electorate." That fact was deeply resented and led to people saying to us, "If you're not going to stand out of the way, sorry but we are going to bypass you and vote for Sinn Fein so that we can take the seats." That has not particularly helped the political atmosphere in Northern Ireland; it does not give voters a full and honest choice.
	Now, the Conservative party says that it will come into Northern Ireland so that everyone, regardless of background, can vote for secular politics and for parties of national government. Of course, the Conservatives start off with a kind of "new force" axis with the Ulster Unionist party and then they seem to dabble in discussions about a more pan-Unionist pact that might be offered. The party is trapped in that situation, despite what might be its honest good motives; I do not know about those, but I am not here to cast doubt on them. The Conservative party finds itself dragged into that precisely because of the first-past-the-post system. If the party is honest and serious about coming into Northern Ireland and making a new, honest offer of its manifesto, the only way in which it will credibly do that is if it supports a change in the first-past-the-post system.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is a strong advocate for the proportional representation system, but he is over-egging his argument if he thinks that it is a way of moving away from people voting on the basis of a Unionist preference or a nationalist preference, given that the vast majority do not transfer between Unionists and nationalists even in a PR election. His other central argument was that having a more proportional system, or an alternative vote system, would increase the credibility of this place. Does he accept that the credibility of this place is not based on how people are elected but on how they behave once they are elected, and that therefore a change in the electoral system would make no difference?

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I do not accept it. Our experiences in Northern Ireland so far have been in multi-seat elections where people generally transfer to various other candidates whom they think might stand a chance of winning. In elections to a single seat, transfers cross party lines much more; and we increasingly find in elections generally that there is a bit more transferring across the lines. However, electing an MP on the single-Member constituency model involves a significantly different relationship.
	Why should MPs in Northern Ireland not have the incentive to be much more actively cross-community in their appeal and be able to stand on much more of a cross-community mandate? That would be to the good of politics in Northern Ireland, and it might add to the weight and credibility that MPs from Northern Ireland have in this House, instead of our just being seen according to the colour of our political faction with no other agenda or mandate behind us other than that we were lucky enough to scrape through because of how things worked out in our constituencies according to first past the post.
	I believe that this is an important step. I cannot dissuade anybody from feeling scepticism or cynicism about the motivation behind proposing it now, but I see very positive opportunities in it. I hope that the Committee will vote tonight to show confidence in the electorate. If people are confident enough to trust the electorate with the first-past-the-post system, why do they not trust them with a referendum that would allow them to make a choice between that system and one that ensures that they have more control over electoral mandates, and where it is less to do with the luck-almost the electoral scratchcard-of first past the post?

John Gummer: One could start by saying that there is a distinction between offering the public a choice and offering them a proper choice. I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that one should trust the public. Our complaint about the proposal is that it is a fraud, because it does not offer a choice that is in any way informed by a study, a concern, or a search for an alternative, but simply a choice between first past the post and AV. AV has never been adduced as a sensible alternative to first past the post in any independent inquiry that has been held, so there must be another reason for offering this particular choice. I do not always disagree with the hon. Gentleman's views, as he well knows, but it is not trusting the people to present them with a fake choice. This choice is being offered simply because it is convenient to the Government, not because it is something that the public want or can exercise.
	There is no widespread demand for a change in the electoral system: there is widespread demand for a change in the way that this Parliament works, which is a wholly different matter. I might have had some sympathy with the Government if I did not know that they are not prepared to allow the House a proper consideration of the Wright committee's report. If they were in the course of coming to the House to make real decisions about giving Back Benchers the opportunity to control the Executive in the way that we once did and could again, they would be able also to suggest that the electoral system might be improved. However, as they have consistently diminished the power of the House over 12 or 13 years, they cannot be taken seriously if, in their dying days, they suggest that we should have a different system of election.
	This Government are the reason for much of the disillusionment in the nation. Under the word "modernisation", they conned a new generation of Members of Parliament into giving away the very mechanisms that enabled the House to keep the Executive under control, at least to some extent. That started with the guillotine-the demand that we should at all times ensure that every Bill was controlled by the Government. That has been serious, because it has meant that no Bill has been properly debated in this House since. Without the unelected second House, there would not have been proper consideration of a whole Bill in any circumstance.
	In addition to that, the Government have insisted that we should have a system that not only has a guillotine but that increasingly uses secondary legislation as a mechanism of avoiding discussion in the House. If we changed that, which the Wright Committee has suggested ways of doing, we would be much more in touch with what the public want than we are in any discussion about electoral reform.
	However, let us for a moment suggest that we might need electoral reform. I oppose referendums in any circumstance except this one. A referendum is an unsuitable way of making any decision in a parliamentary democracy. I have voted against it, and I believe my party is foolish to have taken it up. It seems to me to be a mechanism that is both foreign in invention and foreign to our system, but it has always been said that if we want to change the electoral system itself, there has to be a mechanism by which we return to the public. I therefore do not object to the referendum as a concept in this case, but I do object to conning the public. What do I say to them? I say, "You are going to have a choice not between proportional representation of one sort or another and first past the post, but between the disproportional first past the post and the more disproportional AV." That is not a choice; it is a ridiculous offering that could be given only by a Government who are cynical in the extreme.
	I am very sorry about the two poor, pathetic Ministers who have to defend the Government, because both of them are decent and know perfectly well that in a real world they would never be making this argument. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), will do his best, of course-that is his job and he will feel that he has to. However, he knows perfectly well that it would be honest to get up and say, "We are going to give an offering between one system and another," but that it is not proper to put forward something that has only one object-to benefit the Government, or the party that the Government hope to entice into coalition if they are in a position to do so. That is what this is about, and we know it. The Minister may smile happily, and he is a genuine and decent man, but if he thinks he can find more than five independent people outside here who have not sussed that out, he will be lucky. Nobody in the country believes that this suggestion has been made for other than mere cynical political reasons. That is the fact. No amount of spin, talking among themselves or discussion will lead anybody outside to believe that this measure is anything other than another cynical move by a very cynical Government.

Mark Durkan: rose-

John Gummer: I give way to an uncynical Member.

Mark Durkan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman uncynically for being so generous. He is suggesting that Ministers do not believe the arguments that they are making. Does he believe the argument that he makes-that the referendum is wrong because it will offer a choice not between PR and first past the post, but between only AV and first past the post? If he really believes that argument, will he therefore vote for Lib Dem amendment (b)?

John Gummer: No I will not- [ Interruption . ] No. I will not do so because I do not believe in proportional representation, and I am now going to explain to the hon. Gentleman why it is wrong.
	One must begin with the assumption that no electoral system is perfect. We must also say that the electoral system in a parliamentary democracy is to elect both a Parliament and a Government. One must therefore balance the need for proportionality and an exact mathematical reflection of votes cast, and the need for a Government with a firm mandate. The first-past-the-post system has a huge advantage, because it means that there are coalitions before, rather than after, elections. I therefore believe that that system is more democratic than any system of proportional representation, because voters know precisely what they are getting.
	A Conservative voter votes for a range of people, from me to a number of my colleagues who are rather more to the right; and a Labour voter knows perfectly well that they are voting for a coalition that stretches in a different direction, but which gets quite close in the middle. Liberal Democrat voters have no idea what they are voting for-and they are the sort of people who do not mind that. I have therefore always thought that the Liberal Democrats are the one party that have no right to talk about the electoral system, because what they propose is determined by where in the country one lives.

Patrick Cormack: It is a lucky dip.

John Gummer: Indeed it is. Liberal Democrat voters in my constituency vote for a totally different policy from Liberal Democrat voters in the constituency next door. People know perfectly well that the policy will be dictated by how many people they think they can get to vote on any subject. Sometimes that varies from ward to ward, sometimes from street to street, and I have noticed that it sometimes varies from house to house. As a friend of mine said to me on the doorstep, "The choice here is between Conservative and Liberal Democrat. If God had been a Liberal Democrat, He would have offered us the ten suggestions." Of course, that is true. The trouble and the difficulty is that not only would He have offered my friend ten suggestions, He would have offered his neighbour ten different suggestions.
	The Liberal Democrats talk about electoral systems. In every election but one, when I beat them to it, they have put out a letter in my constituency saying, "Only the Liberal Democrats"-

Sylvia Heal: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will get back to looking specifically at the proposals before us. I understand the points he is making, but perhaps, because of the time, he will now do so.

John Gummer: Of course, I obey exactly what you say, Mrs. Heal, but the Liberal Democrats have in this debate taken a holier-than-thou position on the electoral system. I am merely pointing out that they are in no position to do so, but I will move on.
	There is a great argument that most PR systems suffer from a notably unfair mechanism. I raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former leader of the Conservative party, the question of the German system. In Germany, the Free Democratic party has an almost perpetual lien on being Foreign Secretary. That is an arrangement. Herr Genscher was Foreign Secretary for so long that he could not remember whether the world was different when he started from the way it was when he finished, because it had been such a long time. Germany is back in that kind of politics again now.
	That is all very well, but it means that the Free Democrat voter has more power than any other voter in that system, so it is not fair. The trouble with the AV system, as with many others, is that it means that those who vote for a minority party have, in effect, two votes. It is no good saying that they do not. If I vote for a majority party, I have only one go at it. The person who votes first for ridiculous parties such as UKIP has another vote, and no doubt votes for the Liberal Democrats. I understand that if Liberal Democrat voters are polled, there are proportionally more anti-Europeans among them than in any other of the major parties. Suppose the person votes for the Liberal Democrats. They do not win, so the voter still has a chance to vote Conservative or Labour.

Hugh Bayley: It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to give way, but he has got the mathematics wrong. In the first round in the circumstances that he describes, the Conservative voter has one vote, which goes to the Conservative party. The Lib Dem has one vote, which goes to the Lib Dems. If the Lib Dem candidate is eliminated, in the second round, that vote may go to some other candidate, and in the second round the Conservative voter still gets one vote and it goes to the Conservative candidate.

John Gummer: The Conservative voter has the same vote in both rounds, whereas the other voter is able to change his vote. That means he has two votes.  [Interruption.] I am very sorry. The hon. Gentleman can make his point as much as he likes, but the fact is that one chap has two chances to decide and the other chap has only one chance to decide. [Hon. Members: "No!"] Look, in the House of Commons it is always perfectly reasonable to say that there are two ways of looking at the mathematics, or we would never have passed any of the Government's Budgets.
	One can say, "It's really one because it's sort of the Conservative voting Conservative twice." In my view, one person has a series of different choices and the other has one choice, and he cannot go back and say, "In the end, I'd rather like to have done it a different way," so he is in a different position.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am enjoying his speech, and he will wish to know that his description of his opponents chimes a few chords on the Government Benches. Let me correct him, if I may. In his example, the Conservative voter and the person whose first preference was knocked out and who went for a second choice both have the same number of choices. This is a serious point. If there were an eliminating ballot, of the kind that all the parties have used, and the right hon. Gentleman were lucky enough to get a plurality of the first preferences whereas Straw was knocked out, on the second ballot Straw supporters would have to decide who to vote for. So would Gummer supporters. Gummer supporters would carry on voting for Gummer. Straw supporters might decide to vote for Gummer. In both cases two votes have been exercised.

John Gummer: I do not want to go into this too far, because I think the Chair would stop me. The right hon. Gentleman gets it wrong. If there is a sequential vote, as there is in his example, the Gummer supporters can say, "I'm not quite so sure. I don't think my chap is going to win if it goes on like that. He is only a couple of votes ahead of Straw." Because the Gummer supporter is able to vote again, he may vote for Cormack. We had a vote in the House not long ago in which that was precisely what many Members did. It is a different system and not one that I am proposing. I am merely saying that the sequential system is fundamentally different and fairer than the AV system.
	I know that others want to speak so I shall conclude my remarks. I am sorry that there are now only three Liberal Democrats in the Chamber, as I have more to say about their approach to the new clauses that we are discussing.
	The Liberal Democrats have said that they are going to vote for AV even though they accept that it is no more proportional-indeed, it may be less proportional-than first past the post, because it is baby steps towards proportional representation. That is a very suitable phrase for the Liberal Democrats. I ceased to be a liberal at the age of 11-I grew out of it-and that is one of the issues here. The point about the Liberal Democrats is that they will do anything to change the system, because the present system does not do them the justice that they feel they should have. They would even move from first past the post to a less fair system so that they get more votes. What kind of principle is that?
	The Secretary of State said that this is a matter of principle. I have heard no principle from those who support these new clauses. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will consider four points. First, there is a fundamental difference between reform and change. The Secretary of State has been talking about change as if it were reform. If he were bringing this change forward alongside the Wright Committee recommendations in a manner that enabled the House to discuss and vote on them properly, we might believe in the reform agenda, but there is no motion before us to stop automatic guillotines, for example, or to provide that we will sit for as long as it takes properly to discuss issues. There is no motion to require 100 hours in Committee before a guillotine. All those suggestions would keep the Executive under closer control. We cannot apply the word "reform" to a move from first past the post to something that is less fair and more complex.
	The second point is that those of us who are passionate supporters of the European Union, as I am, have gone to great trouble to look at the systems of our neighbours. It would be good if we had a more common approach. However, none of them has a system that I would swap for ours. The disadvantages in every other country are clear, and I shall give one example. If anyone knows a Dutch MP, they will know that he is elected under a perfectly proportional system, but has no interest in a constituency, because in order to be perfectly proportional the system can never be constituency-based.
	The third point is that decisions on constitutional matters taken for party political reasons are always bound to fail-apart from also being fundamentally wrong. Parties of all kinds have tried it, and all of them have discovered that it don't work.
	The last point-

Frank Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: As the right hon. Gentleman has not been in his place for the debate-

Frank Dobson: I was watching it in my office.

John Gummer: Well, that is one of the problems of this House. When we voted for television, we foolishly did not say that it should not be put in Members' offices, so that they would have to come into the Chamber to hear a debate. That is another change that the Government might introduce as a reform-

Sylvia Heal: Order. That is definitely a debate for another day.

John Gummer: Let me finish then. My last point is again addressed to the Liberal Democrats. In the past, they have had a majority in this House. Did they come forward with proportional representation then? Were they keen on making everybody happy with equal votes? Did they give the nascent Labour party the opportunity to have a proper reflection of the number of votes it won? No, they did not. While they had power under the first-past-the-post system, not a word of such a reform passed any of their lips. This question only comes up in the House when a party thinks that it can get something out of it, and if anybody thinks that that is reform, rather than change, they should think again.
	I say to the Lord Chancellor, a man whom I respect and honour-he always knows that that probably means that the next sentence is not going to be as polite-that he cannot help to regain the trust of the people in Parliament by proposing a change that every independent commentator has said is entirely for cynical, party political reasons. No one believes him. No one outside the House thinks that it would have been brought forward had the Prime Minister not thought it was good for him and his party. It would not have been brought forward if the Prime Minister held high views of his responsibility towards Parliament and the people, instead of some of the lowest views of any Prime Minister in our history.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Sylvia Heal: Order. I advise right hon. and hon. Members that the winding-up speech, I understand, will commence at 9.50 pm. I would like as many Members who rose as possible to make a contribution to the debate. I leave hon. Members to do the maths themselves so that that can take place.

Hugh Bayley: We have heard this afternoon a lot of party political advantage masquerading as high principle, but nobody has done it better than the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I do not buy the argument that the public are not interested in how we, as Members, are elected to this place. I think that, at the next general election, there will be two key questions. The first will be on the trust that the public have in us, as Members, and in the House and Parliament as institutions. Secondly, they will be interested in accountability-how they, as the public, can make Members of Parliament, especially those in safe seats, more accountable to the electorate. That is why the public are pressing for things such as primaries to select candidates, the recall of Members, greater transparency through the publication of expenses and Members' commercial interests.
	I believe that the alternative vote increases accountability, because it encourages Members of Parliament and candidates to listen to, and seek to gain second preference votes from, supporters of other parties. For a long time-more than 20 years-I have been a member of a Labour campaign for electoral reform, and I used to argue for proportional representation, but I have to say that I have been won over to the case for the alternative vote, principally because it preserves the constituency link, which I believe is a key issue as far as accountability is concerned.
	Over the past decade and more, we have introduced non-first-past-the-post voting systems for a number of institutions, including the additional Member system for the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. Twenty years ago, I would have favoured that system, but I do not think that it has worked particularly well because it has broken the constituency link and encourages bickering between parties. For example, there might be two MSPs from different parties claiming different mandates from the same group of people.
	The party list system, which the House approved for the European Parliament, like STV, which the Liberal Democrats support, uses multi-Member constituencies that are so big that they break the link between the constituent and the Member of Parliament, leave the public unclear about who represents them and, as we saw at the last election, allow extremists, such as the British National party, to be elected when they have nothing like the support of a majority of members of the public.
	The London Mayor-I say this nervously, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) sitting behind me-is elected by a modified form of the alternative vote. That system has worked quite well. Over three elections, we have had three changes. We had an independent Labour Mayor elected, a Labour Mayor elected and a Conservative Mayor elected. That shows that the alternative vote does not lock in an unfair advantage to the left or the right, or to the two largest parties at the expense of others.
	Opponents of electoral reform ask, "Why bring the proposals forward now? What has changed?" Three things have changed. First, there is greater public mistrust in the system than ever before. Secondly, there has been a fragmentation of the vote. In 1951, 582 MPs-94 per cent. of the total-won with an absolute majority, with more than 50 per cent. of the votes in their constituencies. By 1979, when Margaret Thatcher came to power, the proportion was down to 68 per cent. By 1997, in Blair's landslide, the figure was down to 53 per cent., and at the last election it was down to 34 per cent. Barely one third of the Members of this House enjoy the support of a majority of their voters, let alone a majority of those living and entitled to vote in their constituencies.
	The first-past-the-post system works fairly well in a two-party race and reasonably fairly in a broadly two-party system, but the United Kingdom no longer has a two-party system. We have three broadly left-of-centre parties: the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party. In addition, we have two broadly right-of-centre parties-the Tories and the UK Independence party-and some other parties too, which are represented in the Chamber this evening.
	In York in 1987, which was the first time I stood, there were four candidates. In the last election there were eight candidates. There has been a fragmentation of the political parties, too. In 1987, I lost the election by 147 votes. The Green party took 637 votes. The Liberal Democrats, who had a particularly strong candidate-a Social Democratic party candidate, as he was in those days-in the form of the person who is now the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), took 9,898 votes. I would not be human if I did not wonder whether I might just have scraped ahead if those votes had been redistributable to other candidates. The same question occurs to Conservatives who lose by a whisker because their vote is split by UKIP or some other right-of-centre party.
	In a constituency where 40 per cent. of the voters vote for candidate A and 40.1 per cent. vote for candidate B, should not the remaining 20 per cent. of the electorate have a say over whether A or B should represent them? [Hon. Members: "No."] We are hearing the self-interest now. Under first past the post, everyone in that 20 per cent. is disenfranchised. They have no say one way or the other between the two leading candidates. The alternative vote would enfranchise them. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) argued so eloquently, the public have the right to decide whether they want to make a change. We should put our trust in the public and have a referendum on the issue.

George Galloway: Like the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), I am a long-time member of the Labour campaign for proportional representation. Indeed, I am still a member, although not a member of the Labour party.  [ Interruption. ] I know, that's me expelled now-I have blown it. I was a member of the campaign when the late Robin Cook was its chairman. Imagine my surprise to learn that the hon. Gentleman has been won over by the Government's position, thereby leaving us.
	Like the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I came here this evening to support amendment (b), standing in the name of the Liberal Democrats, although I almost lost the will to live as we approached the 50th minute of the speech by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). I have sufficiently woken up that I will still vote for that amendment. However, in extremis, like the hon. Member for Foyle, I will support the Government, and for the same reasons: that what is proposed is a step forward and a slight improvement.
	The Government are making a big mistake if they think that this little broom is going to sweep clean the Augean stables in this place. The labours of Hercules and the diversion of great rivers were required to cleanse the stench of those stables, and this little broom-this tiny little reform-will not do it. It will take far more radical proposals than this Government are likely to introduce to restore public trust in this place, and far more than have been canvassed in this debate, which, I am sorry to say, has been characterised by a complacent, joking, student debating society approach.  [ Interruption . ] Well, it has. I have sat here for six and a half hours, shaking my head at the complacency on view on both sides. Members have no idea of the contempt out there in the country for the kind of debate and debating styles that have been on display this evening.
	The reforms that we need in this place are beyond the reach of the existing Members of the House of Commons. That is why we urgently need a general election as soon as possible. We need to change the way in which we approach all our politics, and in my view, that includes retiring this very building. We need to acknowledge that it has become a museum-

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. In the time that is remaining, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the new clause that is before the Committee.

George Galloway: If I do-and I will-follow your injunction, Mrs. Heal, I shall be practically the only Member in the entire debate to have done so. We have covered Scottish devolution, Lloyd George, and the whole of 20th century history, all in that lazy, complacent way. But I shall-

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will do so. Whatever other people might have done, I am currently in the Chair, and I am suggesting that he confine his remarks to the new clause.

George Galloway: How I wish that you had been in the Chair all evening, Mrs. Heal, as I have had to listen to all of it.
	I am in favour of the kind of reforms that are beyond this House, but I shall confine my remarks to those that are not. That there is cynicism is obvious. The Government are in favour of a referendum on this-a voting system that no one in the country is talking about-but on nothing else. A referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which everyone in the country was talking about, was promised in the manifesto, but it was denied. But I risk straying again, Mrs. Heal.
	I regret to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)-with whom I was long associated, not least on this subject-painted a picture of a Scottish people unable to grasp the complexities of the single transferrable vote system. He insisted that whether someone's name was Anderson or Young had far more significance under the STV system in local government elections in Scotland than-

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. Having had to put up with a guilt-ridden, doubt-fuelled rant about Parliament, we are now having to endure a treatise on STV, which is not part of the new clause-[Hon. Members: "Yes it is!"] I hope that you will bring this to an end, Mrs. Heal.

The First Deputy Chairman: The points that are currently being made are relevant to the debate.

George Galloway: Yes, they are. I am supporting amendment (b). The hon. Gentleman-who has made at least six interventions, each one more bovine than the last-ought to have read the amendment paper more closely.
	The single transferable vote system may or may not be beyond the voters in Edinburgh, but my experience of Edinburgh is that nothing is beyond them. It is certainly not beyond the voters of the Republic of Ireland who have developed that system into a fine art. It is as fine an art of political sophistication as is available anywhere in the western world. It is not beyond our people to grasp its complexities. Neither is it the case that one of the three Members for Dublin South is not regarded by the voters of Dublin South as their MP, nor that the MP for Dublin South does not regard himself as the MP for Dublin South because there are two other Members. That is absurd. The idea that this ossified system of ours-of "one Member, one constituency" of a given size-is a better system is foolish in the extreme.
	If we moved to the system in the Republic of Ireland, as we can do if we support amendment (b) this evening, things would change. But then, if things do not change, there is no hope for politics in this country.  [Interruption.] I hear a sedentary intervention saying there is no hope for me. I have won five general elections, the first of which was against the great Roy Jenkins, who was prayed in aid by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) earlier this evening. Roy Jenkins was the first pillar of the establishment I defeated; he was not the last, and there may be more to come. Don't bet the farm on that.
	Roy Jenkins suggested to this Government more than 10 years ago that they could have grasped this nettle, yet they refused to do so for the same cynical reason that they are now grasping for it. If they had listened to Roy Jenkins and implemented the Jenkins commission report, the centre-left majority that exists is this country would be entrenched in power and the right-wing rump represented by these people here, who opposed votes for women, who opposed votes for working men- [Interruption.] They can laugh, but people know that the words democracy and the Conservative party do not easily fit together. This right-wing rump- [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order.

George Galloway: This right-wing rump-for a variety of reasons that I have no time to develop-now stands on the brink of power, but they would never have been in power again if Jenkins had been listened to and electoral reform had been implemented. Do the maths; look at any opinion poll; add up the Labour and the Liberal and the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Respect and other parties, and it is easy to see that there is a very clear centre-left majority in this country. What would be wrong with an electoral system that gave the House of Commons the actual levels of representation that the people had voted for?
	My last words on this-[Hon. Members: "Hooray."] Yes, they don't like it up 'em, Madam Chairman. That is for sure- [Interruption.] Well, some of them do! My last words are that proportional representation is about giving people what they vote for. I have heard all sorts of asinine comments tonight about small parties being the prerogative for idiots. It was twice said that people who vote for the third or the fourth party are idiots. Well, that is a good way to increase their popularity, but those people have as much right to choose how this House of Commons looks like as any of those supporting what we increasingly less often can call the major parties.
	Proportional representation is about giving people a House of Commons that reflects how they voted. What is wrong with a system that provides 10 per cent. or 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the seats in a Parliament if the party received 10 per cent. or 30 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the votes. What is wrong with that? I will tell you what is wrong with it, Mrs. Heal. It would put the iron-clad consensus that normally exists across this Chamber out of business-and that would be a good thing, too.

Michael Wills: I think we have had a good debate. Amid all the arcane discussion of electoral technology, various important points of principle have emerged.
	Before I turn to some of the detail, let me highlight three key points. Nearly all the Members who spoke touched on the question of partisan advantage in the different systems, and much play was made of extrapolations by various academics. I caution Members not to take voters for granted-voters tend to get the Government they want regardless of the electoral system that is in place-and I say to Members who are relying on professors that even professors can be wrong. This issue must be treated as one of principle, or it should not be treated at all.
	Secondly, there is the difficult question of which principles should be engaged. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is present. He rightly drew attention to the fungible nature of the term "fairness". I commend to all Members an admirable document entitled "Review of Voting Systems", which tries to assess the various voting systems according to seven criteria-proportionality, participation, the stability and effectiveness of government, the impact on voters, social representation, political campaigning and the impact on administration-and reaches very different conclusions.
	There are strong, principled arguments on all sides of this debate, and we have heard them from both sides of the Chamber this evening. The Government have made it clear that our objective is to enhance the legitimacy of the system, and I was glad that, in a good speech, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) said exactly that. Others may seek different ends from their electoral system, but that is what we seek.
	Finally, let me deal with the question of who should decide the electoral system. In discussing our proposal, the Conservatives more or less exhausted the dictionary in seeking synonyms for scorn and contempt, but I remind them that all we are asking is for the British people to be able to decide. I fail to understand why that should excite such opposition from the Conservative party.

Richard Burden: The most important thing that the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech yesterday was, "Above all, power to the people." Why does my right hon. Friend think the Opposition find it so difficult to say that they and I, if we come to this place, should have the support of at least 50 per cent. of the people who vote in the election?

Michael Wills: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I will suggest a possible reason why the Opposition take that view.
	Despite several attempts, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) failed to provide any compelling reason why a system that is good enough for the Conservatives to elect their own leader and good enough for hereditary peers to elect hereditary peers in the House of Lords-a system which, incidentally, the Conservative party voted to support just two weeks ago-should be so axiomatically bad for parliamentary elections that the British people must be denied a say in whether they want to elect their Members of Parliament under that system. It is, I am sorry to say, hard to avoid the impression that the Conservatives are operating solely and exclusively in pursuit of what they believe, probably wrongly, to be their partisan self-interest.  [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order.

Michael Wills: The vigour of the response that my words have elicited may demonstrate that I have struck a raw nerve. It is clear from new clause 99, which, sadly, we shall not have time to debate tonight-from now on it will be known as the gerrymandering clause-that that is precisely what the Conservative party is trying to do.
	Everyone is in favour of cutting the cost of politics, and everyone is in favour of a fair distribution of seats-

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. Is it in order for the Government to guillotine debate to make it impossible for us to discuss this evening our proposal on new boundaries for constituencies, and then for the Minister to abuse the orders of the House by making a speech upon it in his reply to the Government amendments?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is, in fact, a point for debate and, as the occupant of the Chair, I am bound by the Standing Orders of the House that were agreed upon for this debate.

Michael Wills: I will move on now, but I very much want to return to debate this subject-and, believe me, we will, because we want to expose exactly what the Opposition are trying to do through this new clause.
	There were several distinguished contributions to our debate. I want to single out my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who rightly drew attention to the merits of open primaries. Shortly, I will explain exactly what I think the Conservative party is about, but I want to pay tribute to its pioneering efforts in this one area. There is a lot to be said for open primaries, and all of us should explore this further; it is about the fundamental reform of politics.
	The absence of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) from this House after the next election will be a great loss to Parliament. He made a point-he did so several times-about whether the Bill has any chance of success. I think he is making assumptions that he, as a most distinguished parliamentarian, should know it is unwise to make. We will see; Parliament should, and will, decide.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is not in his place at present, but he made an immensely entertaining speech. He asked why there was this choice between first past the post and the alternative vote. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that clear: it is because we believe in majoritarian systems. We believe fundamentally in the importance of the direct link between the Member of Parliament and their constituency. This is simply a choice between two such systems. The right hon. Gentleman also asked a question about money, and I am sorry he is not present to hear that in this financial year and the next his area will receive an extra £92.3 million in NHS funding. I hope that might convince him of the merits of a Labour Government.
	Everyone agrees that this country's democracy needs to be renewed in every area, and this Government are committed to that. We have cleaned up the scandal of parliamentary expenses so the abuses that took place can never take place again. We are committed to giving Parliament more power, and many of the measures in this Bill advance that.  [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but the private conversations of Members who have recently arrived in the Chamber are far too loud. Those who have been here for this debate, as well as myself, would like to hear the Minister's reply.

Michael Wills: Thank you, Mrs. Heal.
	We are rightly putting forward through this Bill many measures to give Parliament more power. We set up the Wright Committee, and we will see through its recommendations. We are committed to bringing in recall of MPs. We are pioneering new ways of involving the public directly in policy making. This commitment to constitutional renewal is the context for these measures.
	We all need to do everything we can in every area to enhance the legitimacy of our democracy with the people we all serve. The legitimacy of the electoral system is fundamental to that. There is clearly a case for enhancing that legitimacy and, as many Members have explained this evening, the alternative vote can do that by ensuring that every Member of Parliament comes to this place with the support, in some form, of a majority of voters. These Government proposals give the British people a choice as to how they want to elect their Members of Parliament. We should give them that choice and support these proposals.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 365, Noes 187.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time.
	 Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 1 February 2010).
	 The First Deputy Chairman put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
	 Amendment proposed to new clause 88: (b), leave out 'an alternative-vote' in subsection (2)(a) and insert 'a single transferable vote'.- (David Howarth.)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee proceeded to a Division.

The First Deputy Chairman: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 69, Noes 476.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 357, Noes 182.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 New clause 88 added to the Bill.

New Clause 89
	 — 
	Entitlement to vote

'Those entitled to vote in the referendum under section [ Referendum on voting systems] are-
	(a) the persons who, on the date of the poll, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency, and
	(b) the persons (not within paragraph (a)) who on that date would be entitled to vote as electors at an election to the European Parliament in any electoral region because of section 8(3) or (4) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 (peers).'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 90
	 — 
	Referendum period

'(1) This section sets out what is the referendum period, for the purposes of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, for the referendum under section [ Referendum on voting systems].
	(2) Subject to subsection (3), the referendum period-
	(a) begins with the date of the making of the order under section [ Referendum on voting systems] that fixes the date of the poll, and
	(b) ends with the date of the poll.
	(3) If the order mentioned in subsection (2)(a) fixes a date that is more than 6 months after the day on which the order is made, the referendum period is the period of 6 months ending with the date of the poll.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 91
	 — 
	Role of Electoral Commission

'(1) 'The Electoral Commission must take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness about the referendum under section [ Referendum on voting systems] and how to vote in it.
	(2) The Electoral Commission may take whatever steps they think appropriate to provide, for persons entitled to vote in the referendum, information about each of the two voting systems referred to in section [ Referendum on voting systems] (3).'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 92
	 — 
	Payments to counting officers

'(1) A counting officer is entitled to recover his or her charges in respect of services rendered, or expenses incurred, for or in connection with the referendum under section [ Referendum on voting systems] if-
	(a) the services were necessarily rendered, or the expenses were necessarily incurred, for the efficient and effective conduct of the referendum, and
	(b) the total of the officer's charges does not exceed the amount ("the overall maximum recoverable amount") specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, with the consent of the Treasury, for the purposes of this subsection.
	(2) An order under subsection (1) may specify, or make provision for determining in accordance with the order, a maximum recoverable amount for services or expenses of a specified description.
	Subject to subsection (3), the counting officer may not recover more than that amount in respect of such services or expenses.
	(3) In a particular case the Electoral Commission may, with the consent of the Treasury, authorise the payment of-
	(a) more than the overall maximum recoverable amount, or
	(b) more than the specified maximum recoverable amount for any specified services or expenses,
	if the Commission are satisfied that the conditions in subsection (4) are met.
	(4) The conditions are-
	(a) that it was reasonable for the counting officer concerned to render the services or incur the expenses, and
	(b) that the charges in question are reasonable.
	(5) The Electoral Commission must pay the amount of any charges recoverable in accordance with this section on an account being submitted to them.
	But if the Commission think fit they may, before payment, apply for the account to be taxed under section [ Taxation of counting officer's account].
	(6) Where the superannuation contributions required to be paid by a local authority in respect of a person are increased by a fee paid under this section as part of a counting officer's charges at the referendum, then on an account being submitted to them the Electoral Commission must pay to the authority a sum equal to the increase.
	(7) On the counting officer's request for an advance on account of the officer's charges, the Electoral Commission may make an advance on such terms as they think fit.
	(8) The Electoral Commission may by regulations make provision as to the time when and the manner and form in which accounts are to be rendered to the Commission for the purposes of the payment of a counting officer's charges.
	(9) An order or regulations under this subsection may make different provision for different cases.
	(10) Any sums required by the Electoral Commission for making payments under this section are to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 93
	 — 
	Taxation of counting officer's account

'(1) An application for a counting officer's account to be taxed must be made-
	(a) except where paragraph (b) applies, to a county court;
	(b) where the counting officer is one who was appointed for an area in Scotland, to the Auditor of the Court of Session.
	A reference in this section to "the court" includes a reference to the Auditor mentioned in paragraph (b).
	(2) On any such application the court has jurisdiction to tax the account in such manner and at such time and place as the court thinks fit, and finally to determine the amount payable to the counting officer.
	(3) Where an application is made for a counting officer's account to be taxed, the officer may apply to the court for it to examine any claim made by any person ("the claimant") against the officer in respect of matters charged in the account.
	(4) On an application under subsection (3), after the claimant has been given notice and an opportunity to be heard and to tender any evidence, the court may allow, disallow or reduce the claim, with or without costs.
	The court's determination of the claim is final for all purposes and as against all persons.
	(5) An application under subsection (1) for taxation of the account of the counting officer for Northern Ireland must be made to the county court that has jurisdiction at the place where the officer certified the number of ballot papers counted and votes cast.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 94
	 — 
	Restriction on legal challenge to referendum result

'(1) No court may entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast in the referendum under section [Referendum on voting systems] as certified by the Chief Counting Officer or a counting officer unless-
	(a) the proceedings are brought by a claim for judicial review, and
	(b) the claim form is filed before the end of the permitted period.
	(2) In subsection (1) "the permitted period" means the period of 6 weeks beginning with-
	(a) the date on which the Chief Counting Officer or counting officer gives a certificate as to the number of ballot papers counted and votes cast in the referendum, or
	(b) if the Chief Counting Officer or counting officer gives more than one such certificate, the date on which the last is given.
	(3) In the application of this section to Scotland, subsection (1) has effect-
	(a) with the substitution in paragraph (a) of "a petition" for "a claim";
	(b) with the substitution in paragraph (b) of "the petition is lodged" for "the claim form is filed".
	(4) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, subsection (1) has effect-
	(a) with the substitution in paragraph (a) of "an application" for "a claim";
	(b) with the substitution in paragraph (b) of "the application for leave to apply for judicial review is lodged" for "the claim form is filed".'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 95
	 — 
	Referendums: person may not be "responsible person" for more than one permitted participant

'(1) Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (referendums) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 105 (permitted participants), in subsection (1)(b)(i), after "(as defined by section 54(8))" insert "who is not the responsible person, in relation to the referendum, for another permitted participant".
	(3) In section 106 (declarations and notifications for purposes of section 105), after subsection (4) insert-
	"(4A) A declaration made or notification given by a body in relation to a particular referendum does not comply with the requirement in subsection (2)(b) or (4)(b)(ii) (to state the name of the person who will be responsible for compliance) if the person whose name is stated-
	(a) is already the responsible person for a permitted participant in relation to the referendum,
	(b) is an individual who gives a notification under subsection (3) in relation to the referendum at the same time, or
	(c) is the person whose name is stated, in purported compliance with the requirement in subsection (2)(b) or (4)(b)(ii), in a notification given in relation to the referendum at the same time by another body.
	In this subsection "the person", in relation to a body other than a minor party, is to be read as "the person or officer"."'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 96
	 — 
	Referendums: expenses incurred by persons acting in concert

'(1) Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (referendums) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 118 (special restriction on referendum expenses by permitted participants), in subsection (4), after "for the purposes of this section," insert "section 118A,".
	(3) After that section insert-
	"118A Referendum expenses incurred by persons acting in concert
	(1) This section applies where-
	(a) any referendum expenses are incurred by or on behalf of an individual or body during the referendum period for a referendum to which this Part applies, and
	(b) the expenses are so incurred in pursuance of a plan or other arrangement whereby referendum expenses are to be incurred by or on behalf of-
	(i) that individual or body, and
	(ii) one or more other individuals or bodies,
	respectively with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, promoting or procuring one particular outcome in relation to any question asked in the referendum.
	(2) The expenses mentioned in subsection (1)(a) shall be treated for the purposes of-
	(a) section 117,
	(b) section 118 and Schedule 14, and
	(c) sections 120 to 123,
	as having also been incurred, during the referendum period, by or on behalf of the other individual or body (or, as the case may be, each of the other individuals or bodies) mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(ii).
	(3) This section applies whether or not any of the individuals or bodies in question is a permitted participant."'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 98
	 — 
	Counting of votes in parliamentary elections

'(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows-
	(2) In Schedule 1 (Parliamentary elections rules), in paragraph 44, after sub-paragraph (1) insert-
	"(1A) The counting of votes in a parliamentary election shall start within four hours of the close of the poll, save in exceptional circumstances.
	(1B) The Secretary of State shall, after consulting the Electoral Commission, prepare draft guidance on the definition of "exceptional circumstances" for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A).
	(1C) The draft guidance prepared under sub-paragraph (1B) may not be issued unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by both Houses of Parliament."'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	 Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Clause 62
	 — 
	Extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title

Amendments made: 100, page 32, line 38, leave out '(apart from this Part)'.
	Amendment 136, page 32, line 40, at end insert-
	'( ) Subsection (3) does not apply to the following provisions of this Act (which accordingly come into force on the day this Act is passed)-
	(a) sections [ Referendum on voting systems] and [ Referendum period];
	(b) section [ Tax status of MPs and members of the House of Lords];
	(c) section [ Tax status of members of the House of Lords: transitional provision] (or section 33, so far as applied by that section);
	(d) section [ Section 3 of the Act of Settlement];
	(e) sections [ Referendums: person may not be "responsible person" for more than one permitted participant] and [ Referendums: expenses incurred by persons acting in concert];
	(f) this Part.'.- (Mr. Straw.)
	Title
	 Amendments made: 102, line 1, after 'State;' insert
	'to make provision in relation to section 3 of the Act of Settlement and other provision in relation to nationality restrictions connected with employment or the holding of office in a civil capacity under the Crown;'.
	Amendment 133, line 2, after 'treaties;', insert
	'to amend the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and the European Parliament (Pay and Pensions) Act 1979 and to make provision relating to pensions for members of the House of Commons, Ministers and other office-holders;'.
	Amendment 137, line 2, after 'treaties;' insert
	'to make provision for a referendum on the voting system for parliamentary elections, and about referendums generally;'.
	Amendment 134, line 4, after 'Lords;', insert
	'to make provision for treating members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords as resident, ordinarily resident and domiciled in the United Kingdom for taxation purposes;'.
	Amendment 43, line 10, after 'Office;' insert
	'to amend Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 in relation to the Auditor General for Wales;'.- (Mr. Straw.)

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Madam Chairman. The reality is that, without the debate having been long-winded, yet again we have failed to consider a large number of clauses, including on questions of mental illness of Members of Parliament, the role of the Attorney-General, war powers, code of conduct for publicly funded bodies, royal marriages and succession to the Crown, complaints to the parliamentary commissioner, and parliamentary constituencies and elections. Is it not making a mockery of the House that yet again we show ourselves utterly unable to consider and scrutinise legislation properly?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point, and it will have been heard and noted. Equally, he will know that I am bound by the programme order of the House.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill, as amended, reported (Standing Order No. 83D(6)).
	 Bill to be considered tomorrow.

Sunbeds (Regulation) Bill [ Money]

Queen's recommendation signified.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sunbeds (Regulation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.- ( Gillian Merron .)

Gillian Merron: The Sunbeds (Regulation) Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), and the Bill has received a Second Reading and is due to be considered in a Public Bill Committee tomorrow. The provisions in the Bill make new powers available to local authorities in England, and accordingly a money resolution is required in order that the Bill can be debated in Committee.

Christopher Chope: Will the Minister give way?

Gillian Merron: I would like to make some progress.
	As I made clear on Second Reading, I believe that the Bill provides the first legislative opportunity to tackle an urgent problem. It is supported by evidence from a range of sources, including findings of the World Health Organisation, the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, and surveys carried out by Cancer Research UK on behalf of the Department of Health. The evidence supports the view that informs this Bill: that sunbeds are a health risk, that use of sunbeds by under-18s is growing, that there is a clear link between sunbed use and skin cancer, and that voluntary regulation by industry has not been enough to protect young people. The Bill addresses those problems directly, which is why the Government fully support it. The provision of funding for local enforcement is necessary if the aims of the Bill are to be achieved. That is why I commend the resolution to the House.

Mark Simmonds: We, on the Conservative Benches, are supportive of the Bill, and we supported its contents on Second Reading. There is clear clinical evidence to support the banning of under-18s from using sunbeds, and we wish to see the Bill progress. As the Minister rightly said, the Committee stage is tomorrow.
	However, I have one query for the Minister about the money resolution. It is a query that I raised on Second Reading, but one that I did not get a response to. In the impact assessment, the annual cost of the implementation and enforcement of the Bill is estimated at £88,000-approximately £100,000-which is based on the questionable assumption that 5 per cent. of sunbed salons would continue to allow under-18s to use their sunbeds, and that that would be identified only through public complaint. Is the Minister confident that the detail in the impact assessment is correct? It does not appear to have been strongly or forensically analysed, and that figure could be a gross underestimate of the possible costs to local authorities. Will she therefore confirm that the total cost allowed under this money resolution is £88,000, as detailed in the impact assessment?

Sandra Gidley: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the motion, and I see no reason to detain the House any further.

Christopher Chope: It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that the Minister has not put any figures whatever on her assessment of the costs of the provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), speaking from the Front Bench, has rightly drawn attention to the figure of £88,000. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are in an age of austerity. Surely we should be considering affordability. In my submission, therefore, it is incumbent on the Minister, before asking us to accept this money resolution, to give us an indication of the likely costs, because surely we cannot be in the business of providing the Government with blank cheques.

Andrew Pelling: But will not the saving for the national health service, in terms of the health of the young people concerned, mean that the Bill will inevitably be an excellent investment, and that we should get on with agreeing to the motion?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman makes an assertion. What I am interested in is evidence. I look to the Minister to provide some evidence that the provision will be proportionate, and that it will not offend against the principle of affordability. I also want to ensure that she will take into account the information that came to me earlier this evening, which is that many users of sunbeds who are under 18 are employed in our armed forces. The impact on their morale could be substantial if they cannot continue to use sunbeds. I should be grateful if the Minister could address those points in responding to this brief debate.

Gillian Merron: I am grateful for the support across the House. I should be happy to clarify this further, but just to make it clear, £88,000 is what we believe will be required to ensure proper enforcement of the ban for under-18s. That is based on information provided to us by the Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services. If we chose to exercise the regulation-making powers, we would of course conduct further impact assessments. I commend this motion to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	delegated legislation

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 7, 8, 9 and 10 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Disabled Persons

That the draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility (London Underground Metropolitan Line S8 Vehicles) Exemption Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

Investigatory Powers

That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 5 January, be approved.
	That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 5 January, be approved.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 18 January, be approved. -( Mr. Mudie .)
	 Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Obtaining Evidence in Criminal Matters

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 17691/09, Commission Green Paper on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one Member State to another and securing its admissibility; and supports the Government's objective of only supporting a new EU Mutual Legal Assistance instrument that will bring coherence and add real value to the operation of Mutual Legal Assistance amongst EU member states. -(Mr. Mudie.)
	 Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Peter Bone to present a petition.

Peter Bone: I am sorry that you have been misinformed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I presented my petition last night.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well I am very grateful that you are here to correct that impression now.

Gritting

Tim Farron: I should like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the south lakes regarding gritting and the emergency response, or lack of it, to the recent extreme winter weather conditions.
	The Petition of residents of the South Lakes and others,
	Declares that better gritting is required in the South Lakes.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put pressure on Cumbria County Council to develop an emergency plan to make sure that roads and pavements are cleared properly and people are not trapped in their homes during snowfall.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000733]

Planning and Development (Essex)

Bob Spink: I should like to present an important petition collected by two worthy, caring and community-spirited residents of my constituency, Pam Drever and Pat Shepherd. They are seeking to protect the public interest and to fight a developer who has caused nuisance to neighbours and is seeking to regularise the position of his fence, which he has progressively moved on to what is clearly highway land. The councils must act to stop this unacceptable behaviour, and I warmly congratulate every one of the many people who have signed the petition, which states:
	The Petition of residents of Stanway Road and surrounding areas,
	Declares that we are strongly opposed to the proposed plans application CPT/2/10/FUL to further extend the boundary fencing and gates of the business operating at 77 Stanway Road and believe that if the council pass these plans it will further spoil the appearance of the area, will result in more commercial traffic and street parking in this area, more noise and disturbance to us and will allow the business at 77 to further dominate the area.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Castle Point Borough Councillors, Essex County Councillors and the Highways Authority, to take urgent and tough action to immediately end the improper land grabbing and fencing off of highway land in this otherwise quiet and respectable residential area and take appropriate action to force the business back to the proper boundaries for this site, in the wider public interest.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000734]

Pedestrian Crossings

Celia Barlow: I am privileged to present a petition signed by more than 200 of my constituents calling for the creation of a safe pedestrian crossing at the junction of Old Shoreham road, Neville road and Sackville road in Hove. Of the 212 residents of the five roads at Painters Corner, all but two signed the petition, showing that it has 99 per cent. support. Residents have long noted the increased danger at this crossing, and have cited incidents that include three children being involved in accidents there and numerous near-misses by vehicles. Written complaints to the council have achieved nothing. The petitioners would like the council to remedy this by funding road safety improvements at the junction.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Hove and Portslade and others,
	Declares that the petitioners have serious concerns about the safety of pedestrians using the crossroads at the junction between Old Shoreham Road, Neville Road and Sackville Road; further declares that the Petitioners are concerned that there are no pedestrian crossings on the north or southbound carriageways at the junctions on Neville and Sackville roads, and believe that there is an urgent need for a safe and effective pedestrian crossing at this site.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Ministers in the Department for Transport to take steps to ensure that a crossing is placed at this juncture to ensure the safety of pedestrians at this crossing.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000732]

CLIMATE CHANGE (BANGLADESH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Mudie.)

Colin Challen: I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate provides to raise my concerns about the impacts of climate change on Bangladesh and to say how we should respond to them. In large part, the debate arises out of a joint report published by the all-party climate change groups in the UK and the Bangladeshi Parliaments. The report is called "Climate change equity: is it a plan, an aspiration or a fashion statement?"
	I want to take this opportunity, as chair of the UK all-party group on climate change, to praise the work of my counterpart in Bangladesh, Saber Chowdhury MP, who has shown great leadership on this issue. I also want to praise the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which has taken a leading role in bringing together parliamentarians from around the Commonwealth to discuss the impacts of climate change. As we know, many Commonwealth member states are highly vulnerable to climate change, and it is my belief that, as MPs, we have a considerable task ahead in promoting climate change policies and proactively ensuring that climate change finance is properly utilised. I will return to that subject later.
	As we know, Bangladesh is especially vulnerable to climate change. Even a 1 metre sea-level rise would displace 30 million people, and although that prospect may be some time off, many problems are likely to happen in the meantime due to more intense storms, increasing salinity in drinking water supplies and so forth. I suspect that the prospect of tens of millions of displaced people is one reason why India, which shares most of Bangladesh's border, is building a security fence all along that border. With a land mass the size of England and Wales and a population of around 150 million, the pressures on Bangladesh are immense. Clearly, another consequence of climate change could be the raising of regional tensions.
	Help from the UK is immensely important to the people of Bangladesh. About £1 billion a year is committed, making us Bangladesh's largest donor. Nearly £140 million comes through the Department for International Development. Clearly, the money is devoted to the twin aims of developing Bangladesh's economy and accomplishing the millennium development goals. Equally clearly, these goals and Bangladesh's escape from poverty are threatened by climate change. It is vital to reassess our support in the light of the changing climate.
	We also need to ensure that more money is forthcoming. It would be interesting to learn how much of the $30 billion of early climate change finance proposed by the Copenhagen accord will find its way to Bangladesh. As the Prime Minister has acknowledged, we need to ensure that we are talking about new money-not just taking it from existing development budgets. As we know, some countries have reduced their official development assistance budgets in the wake of the recession. The UK has pledged to increase our official development assistance to the 0.7 per cent. level called for by the United Nations way back in 1970. We need assurances that this increase will be largely separate from climate change finance. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.
	I support the commitment we have made that no more than 10 per cent. of our ODA budgets will be spent on tackling climate change, but I think that we should match that commitment with another and insist that that 10 per cent. never becomes more than 10 per cent. of our climate change assistance. We have to be open and transparent about this; we must not count the new money twice.
	As Copenhagen showed, there is a commitment among developed countries to commit new finance to tackling climate change, but it is not at all clear that the figures mentioned, including the mid-term goal of $100 billion a year by 2020, relate to actual need. One wonders how we arrived at a figure of £64 billion at today's exchange rate. One of the tasks of the two all-party groups' joint report was to see whether we could put a benchmark figure on what Bangladesh should receive from all sources if we had a global deal that really was equitable.
	Global leaders emerging from their summits always like to talk about equity, but they never seem inclined to define it. The nearest they get to doing so is by reference to the United Nations framework convention on climate change statement that we all share "common but differentiated responsibilities". That sounds all well and good, but it is no more than a statement of the bleedin' obvious. What does it mean in practice? In our report, we try to flesh it out.
	We have chosen to use a contraction and convergence-or C and C-model and apply it to the Department of Energy and Climate Change cost of carbon abatement figures. It should be noted that the C and C framework, which posits a contraction in global carbon emissions leading to a global per capita convergence point, is the working model used by our own Climate Change Act 2008, the Committee on Climate Change and many others in calculating what our effort should be. In short, the result of that somewhat inexact exercise as it appears in our report nevertheless shows that fair climate change financing for Bangladesh this year would approach £2 billion. This, let us not forget, is on top of the existing £1 billion from the UK and other international finance.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman has shown great leadership on this issue. May I set it in context? Bangladesh's annual per capita carbon emissions are a quarter of a tonne, the United Kingdom's are approaching 10 tonnes, and those of the United States are about 28 tonnes. Bangladesh did not cause the problem, and it is not fuelling the problem now. We did and we are, so we must pay. That is the clear message.

Colin Challen: I agree. I shall say something about that later.
	Substantial sums are involved, which is all the more reason why we must not pretend that they could be buried in normal ODA financing. I have no idea how Bangladesh will fare in securing a fair share of that help. It has not done very well so far. Let us consider, for example, what it has got out of the clean development mechanism. There seems to be an unwritten rule that the poorer a country is, the less it can earn from CDMs. In other words, if a country is too poor to emit much carbon dioxide in the first place, it cannot expect to receive much help to avoid emitting carbon in the future. If a country cannot enter a carbon market, its costs in tackling climate change will go up. As the carbon price forecasts of the Department of Energy and Climate Change illustrate, in the medium term at least, official assistance is considered to be twice as expensive as market-driven finance.
	What is the basis of the 2020 figure of £64 billion, and what is the basis of the short-term figure of £19.2 billion? Those are the Copenhagen accord figures translated into sterling. Have we begun to identify what the money will be spent on? When do we expect to see it spent? Who will be in charge of it? Those questions urgently need answers. The Copenhagen accord was so lacking in ambition-ambition, that is, to provide a rational and coherent solution to the challenge of climate change-that we should be impatient with any delay or obfuscation over the few promises that were made.
	Another question that our joint report asks about climate change finance is whether we need better governance at international and domestic levels. In Copenhagen last December, I gained the impression that many developing countries were dissatisfied with the way in which climate change is currently handled. It is felt that local voices tend to be excluded from the process. In my view, we should do more-much more-to ensure that local people are in the driving seat.
	In that context, our two all-party groups would like parliamentarians to have a greater role in monitoring the way in which money is spent, and more power to call Governments and international bodies to account. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association could have an enhanced role in the Commonwealth. If Members of Parliament from developed and developing countries had a regular channel through which to share their experiences, we could help to ensure that moneys were spent properly. Such channels could be established by the creation of bilateral Select Committees or a formal inter-parliamentary forum. Saber Chowdhury and I urge both our Governments to consider supporting the establishment of such a parliamentary forum between the United Kingdom and Bangladesh. Our existing links, through the CPA and the fact that we are Bangladesh's largest donor, suggest that a cross-party bilateral arrangement could have a significant role to play.
	Underpinning such an arrangement should be a recognition that equity is not just about money-in which context the donor is too often perceived to have the upper hand-but about ownership. We need to recognise that while we may see ourselves in the United Kingdom as benefactors, we are actually debtors. As is so often said-and as has been said this evening-the developed world created the problem, but it is the developing world that will feel the impact of climate change first. Equity means understanding that countries such as Bangladesh are our creditors, and that it is therefore not for us to demand a dominant say in what we think is best. We must be equal partners, and who better to ensure that we realise that vision than the elected representatives of civil society?
	Another major aspect of our report is the way in which it addresses the impact of climate change on human rights. It argues strongly for a human rights-based approach to climate change, since many of the rights that we cherish can so easily be destroyed by it. The report notes that there are currently four pillars to the climate change negotiations: mitigation, adaptation, financing and technology transfer. We call for the addition of a fifth pillar, that of human rights. In practice that could mean, for example, greater attention being paid to environmental refugees. It may mean that such refugees receive official recognition and status. Obviously, this is a live issue in Bangladesh, for if those 30 million displaced people cannot be accommodated in an already overcrowded country, and are hemmed in by a security fence, what is to become of them? For that matter, what is to become of people whose very nations may disappear, as could be the case for Commonwealth countries such as Vanuatu or Kiribati?
	The UK Government are well placed to launch an initiative to explore the legalities of these matters, and to ensure that the United Nations framework convention on climate change urgently addresses the issue. This work must be done before the crisis deepens.
	The Department for International Development has been one of the outstanding successes of this Labour Government, but the challenges ahead are multiplying. It is good that we are making it a legal responsibility to reach the 0.7 per cent. ODA goal. For 40 years, the UN's ambition was merely voluntary, which is why so many countries have failed to achieve it, but let us not forget that the 0.7 per cent. goal was in no way scientifically arrived at. Even in 1970, it did not relate to actual need. Now, at a time when Nick Stern has suggested that 2 per cent. of GDP will have to be spent tackling climate change, one hopes that we will not be waiting another 40 years before we commit to it.
	I hope that we hear a very positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister this evening, as next week I and colleagues in the CPA will be visiting Bangladesh, and climate change will be at the top of our agenda.

Michael Foster: May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) for securing this debate and for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the impact of climate change on Bangladesh? May I also say how pleased I am that more Members than I had anticipated are present for the debate, especially at such a late hour? My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this subject and he has considerable expertise on it, too, so I treat his views with great respect.
	By now, it is well documented-although, perhaps, not yet as well understood as we might wish-that the impacts of climate change will be most keenly felt by the developing world. Countries such as Bangladesh that are already vulnerable to rising sea levels and changing weather patterns are particularly susceptible. In Bangladesh, climate change is not a future threat, but a current reality. The country is well used to floods and cyclones, and its people are resilient and adaptable, but the pace and severity of the climate changes that the world is now facing could have disastrous consequences for Bangladesh.
	My hon. Friend will doubtless be familiar with the harsh statistics I am about to give, but I make no apology for repeating them, as it is essential to do so, both for the record and to inform our response. Looking ahead, by 2050 Bangladesh could have some 70 million people affected by floods each year, 8 million affected by droughts, and up to 8 per cent. of low-lying land under water owing to rising sea levels. Associated with that will be the saline pollution of rice-growing paddy fields. All of that could happen within the lifetime of our children. Looking even further ahead, by the end of the century, half of Bangladesh's coastal embankments could be breached by rising sea levels. Should sea levels rise by just 1 metre, as my hon. Friend suggested, a fifth of Bangladesh could be flooded. In other words, an area 18 times the size of Greater London would be under water-land that people depend on for shelter and for their livelihoods. All of that could happen within the lifetime of our grandchildren.

Bob Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is an official measure of countries that are vulnerable to climate change, and at the very top of the list of all the significant countries in the whole world is Bangladesh?

Michael Foster: I have visited the country and looked at the statistics in the reports. I agree absolutely: Bangladesh finds itself in that rather unenviable position in the league table.
	The Government of Bangladesh are alert to the problems. They have produced a 10-year climate change strategy and action plan and have allocated funding from their budget to help with implementation. Thanks to support from the international community, they are also working to improve their early warning systems for floods and cyclones.
	Bangladeshi climate negotiators take part in most UN climate negotiation meetings, including discussions on the Copenhagen accord. Although we all recognise that a political resolution was not achieved at Copenhagen, Bangladesh did secure a number of good outcomes. In particular, the adaptation needs of vulnerable developing countries were recognised, as was their entitlement to preferential access to fast-start funds for adaptation.
	Another sign of the commitment of the national Government can be seen in the new international centre for climate change and development that is planned in Dhaka. It will be a centre of excellence, encouraging those responsible for planning to factor climate change implications into their designs. The UK and Bangladesh enjoy strong historical links and we have been working with Bangladesh for many years, supporting development across the country.
	That support includes £100 million allocated over the next eight years to help the people living in the areas that are most affected by climate change. In September 2008, we hosted an international conference on the impact of climate change in Bangladesh. At that event, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a further £75 million to support the Government of Bangladesh's strategy for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Of that £75 million, £60 million will be channelled through a pooled fund to be controlled by the Government of Bangladesh.
	That fund will be administered initially by the World Bank, so that it can provide the financial safeguards that will ensure money is properly used and accounted for. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell understands how important those safeguards are for taxpayers' funds. It will, however, be up to the Government of Bangladesh to decide how the money is spent. I also want to stress that all UK bilateral development assistance to Bangladesh, including the £60 million contribution to the pooled fund for climate change, is made in the form of grants rather than loans.
	The UK has pledged £1.5 billion towards fast-start financing agreed at Copenhagen. That funding will kick-start measures aimed at cutting emissions and will help developing countries to adapt to climate change. Clearly, some of that money will be spent in Bangladesh.
	Climate change has particular consequences for those living near the sea, and I mentioned some of the potential risks earlier. Although at this stage we cannot be sure of the exact impact, we should be in no doubt that millions of people, especially those living in coastal regions, might be forced to relocate if adaptation measures prove inadequate.
	Migration for environmental or climate reasons, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, is nothing new for Bangladesh. The country has suffered regularly from flooding and from cyclones. When such events occur, local people naturally look for better opportunities for themselves and their families. They often decide to move to cities and in doing so they move from the problems in one part of the country to different problems elsewhere-perhaps living in overcrowded slums, putting further pressure on services in Bangladesh. The Government and their development partners are working together to help cities to cope with their growing populations. The UK, for example, is investing £60 million through a United Nations programme to improve infrastructure and services for some 3 million very poor and vulnerable people in 23 towns and cities in Bangladesh.
	I had the privilege of visiting Bangladesh last year and I spent some time with people living on the chars-low-lying sand islands in the Jamuna river. I saw how UK aid had been used to raise homestead farms above the level of the 1998 and 2007 floods. I saw what a difference that made to the people living there. What I saw made me realise the sheer scale of the challenge that climate change presents in Bangladesh.

Greg Clark: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The half-hour Adjournment debate is essentially a Back-Bench occasion and it is not usual for Front-Bench spokesmen to intervene. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not a Front-Bench spokesman on international development, but the fact that he and the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), are here may be seen as their demonstrating their interest. It is better that the debate is kept as a Back-Bench occasion, otherwise other precedents will be set.

Michael Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the climate change agenda and I would certainly welcome any contribution from him if the Chair were to allow it.
	As I was saying, it is unthinkable that those challenges could be ignored. If my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell wants to see some of the work that my Department is doing on the chars before he visits Bangladesh, he could look on DFID's website under the chars livelihoods programme, where he would see some analysis of that project's work. If he were minded to look at YouTube, he could see a video blog that I did while I was on the char islands, which graphically brings home to people in the UK who have not had the privilege of visiting those parts of the world what is happening there. They can see for themselves exactly what we mean when we talk about raising homestead levels and allowing people to deal with climate change and development-all under the roof of one particular project.
	I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to the debate. He said that he and his colleagues from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will visit Bangladesh shortly. I hope that he has a productive trip and I genuinely look forward to receiving a copy of the report that it is customary to produce after such visits. I am more than willing to discuss any of the issues that arise from his visit on his return.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.